Production question for Fumblefingers.

[Gruupi]

I didn't want to sidetrack the jam track thread so I'll ask this hear. I've noticed that your posted Mp3's are very clear and very loud compared to mine. I try to clean up my mix and maximize the volume at each phase of recording to get the best ratio without clipping, yet yours are still sounding much better than mine are. I'm sure that you are more knowledgeable at getting the best signal and I imagine my equipment is good enough to get a good sound.

 

First off, what program and are you using to convert to MP3, I'm just using the free MusicMatch softare to 128 bps. Thats the maximum that soundclick accepts at the free level anyway. I record at 16bit 44k, I can go to 20 bit but haven't really noticed that it makes a diference and its a pain to work with Mp3's and waves back and forth with all different resolutions. My recordings sound much better before conversion to Mp3, yet yours retain much more clarity and volume. Give us some tips if you don;t mind sharing. I try not to use any compression or eq but could be talked into it.

[Sunbreak Music]

Howdy,

Not trying to crowd Fumblefingers, but I can probably help.

 

Maximizing volume upon recording (which you are correct in doing) won't yield a "loud" sounding CD or MP3. You will have to use compression to even get close to what is done commercially.

 

Tell us a bit about your gear, setup, platform, software host, etc., and we can get you in the right direction. Please give me a link to something you have posted.

 

CAA

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Gruupi:

....Mp3's are very clear and very loud compared to mine. I try to clean up my mix and maximize the volume at each phase of recording to get the best ratio without clipping, yet yours are still sounding much better than mine are..... I try not to use any compression or eq but could be talked into it.

"I try to .... maximize the volume at each phase of recording..."

 

Bad idea. Try to diddle the auido as little as possible, and as few times as possible. You don't need to maximise until the very end

 

"I try not to use any compression or eq but could be talked into it."

 

Compression is a large part of making pop tracks 'pop', and compression before converting to MP3 will help to make things stand out. I do very little compressing compared to most others, but wehen making MP3s, I find it to be a requirement. Sometimes it help to thin the mix out a little with some eq cutting before compression.

 

 

In terms of what makes a mix clear.... everyone tries to make every instrument and element as big and badassed as possible. That means that every element is trying to fill up the available sonic space, and each instrument is stepping all over the next one. Mix things in context, and try to have some sense of what the final product needs to sound like, so that you knwo what the various elements need to sound like to make up that final sound. Seldom does every instrument need to be bigger than GOD, and when they are, they do not usually play well together. Mud in a mix is the hot overtones of all of these elements conflicting with each other and bluring the image.

 

Another culprit is reverb... blurs the image. You want to hear a really IN YOUR FACE vocal, put a little verb on everything else and leave the vocal dry. It will jump out at you.

 

I recentrly did a remix that was drenched in reverb. I finally called the client and booked the singer to come in and redo the vocal, because it was just so horribly muddy... when I turned it up loud enough to be heard, it just sounded like garbage.

 

 

Bill

[Sunbreak Music]

Originally posted by Bill@Welcome Home Studios:

Originally posted by Gruupi:

....Mp3's are very clear and very loud compared to mine. I try to clean up my mix and maximize the volume at each phase of recording to get the best ratio without clipping, yet yours are still sounding much better than mine are..... I try not to use any compression or eq but could be talked into it.

"I try to .... maximize the volume at each phase of recording..."

 

Bad idea. Try to diddle the auido as little as possible, and as few times as possible. You don't need to maximise until the very end

 

 

Bill

Whoa. We need clarification here.

 

Does "maximizing the volume" mean you record the hottest signal you can? That's good. If it means you are processing the audio, that has to be discussed.

[Gruupi]

Yes, I am trying to get the hottest signal without clipping or distortion at each phase of the recording, I thought you should always do that. This question is in direct response to the backing track thread, all the instruments are already premixed except for the lead guitar so there is little actual mixing being done.

 

Here is my equipment: I use the Line 6 Pod XTLive for electric guitar. I go through a Spirit/Soundcraft Mixer, with the Pod I could probably skip this part and go straight into my Layla digital converter/soundcard. I record and mix with Cool Edit Pro. The recordings sound good till I do the MP3 conversion but I can tell I am at the verge of distortion in final mixes. I play guitar with a bit of dynamics so I will get into the tracks to bring down some of the peak phrases and then bring the whole level of the track up as high as I can before the final mix. I prefer this to using compression or limiting, which always sounds wierd or processed to me.

 

I noticed that Fumblefingers takes over the same backing tracks were noticably louder than mine were, and I thought I was mixing as hot as I could before clipping. I know he has alot of experience and a great recorded tone, thats why I was trying to pick his brain on what he might be doing different.

[Pappy P]

I would like to hear an answer here to.

 

Basically. How to you get the highest output signal with out clipping or using comperession.

 

I'm happy with my mixing for the most part, and I try to stay away from compression, but it just seems like I have to turn the volume know way up to hear the music and all the dynamics.

 

Why is that? Is it because commercially produced CD have a higher output, or did I just totally miss the target with my mix?

 

For example: I can listen to Fleetwood Mac at no. 4 on my stereo and hear every element.

Tracks I've recorded must be played at 7 or 8.

 

(ref volume scale: 1-10)

[Sunbreak Music]

Yes--record the hottest signal you can w/o clipping. I think Bill thought you were doing some processing (such as normalizing or compressing), so we needed to make sure we're on the same page.

 

Compression isn't a bad thing--heck, your distorted guitar IS compressed. Most people hear about overcompression, and therefore avoid it.

 

Commercial CDs use a combination of compression on individual instruments during mixing and overall compression and limiting (on the main bus) during mastering. That's why they "sound" so much louder than what you're doing at home--the RMS levels are much greater.

 

Many home studio folks use something like Ozone for multiband compression (I'm not in favor of this) in order to achieve those levels.

 

If you want a hotter signal, but want to play it safe, just use a broadband compression or limiter on your output bus. Push the mix until the dynamics are a little more tame, but make sure you don't hear a "pumping" sound w/ the attack and release settings. You'll know it when you hear it.

 

It's possible to make records w/out compression--but not in the rock world. Not these days.

[Billster]

Compression and limiting are your friends, but you must treat them nicely. You can't just smash everything into the compressor to bump up the level - all that does is cramp the space where dynamics can occur. Imagine trying to play basketball (with a 10 foot high rim) in a room that's only got an 11 foot ceiling.

[Big Red 67]

There is a new breed of recording engineer. They mix from tracks and master only for mp3's. Companies are doing this for iTunes etc. It is another animal.

[Billster]

Originally posted by Sunbreak Music:

Many home studio folks use something like Ozone for multiband compression (I'm not in favor of this) in order to achieve those levels.

 

If you want a hotter signal, but want to play it safe, just use a broadband compression or limiter on your output bus. Push the mix until the dynamics are a little more tame, but make sure you don't hear a "pumping" sound w/ the attack and release settings. You'll know it when you hear it.

I'm gonna really strongly disagree with that. The whole point of a multiband compressor is that you can isolate the signals that cause "pumping" by setting the crossover points appropriately.

[Justus A. Picker]

ACK! Brickwall limiting and the entire "my mix is louder than yours" mindset is the reason todays Cds sound like excrement.

[Sunbreak Music]

Originally posted by Billster:

Originally posted by Sunbreak Music:

Many home studio folks use something like Ozone for multiband compression (I'm not in favor of this) in order to achieve those levels.

 

If you want a hotter signal, but want to play it safe, just use a broadband compression or limiter on your output bus. Push the mix until the dynamics are a little more tame, but make sure you don't hear a "pumping" sound w/ the attack and release settings. You'll know it when you hear it.

I'm gonna really strongly disagree with that. The whole point of a multiband compressor is that you can isolate the signals that cause "pumping" by setting the crossover points appropriately.

And I would strongly disagree w/ that

The whole point of a multiband compressor is for a mix that's out of balance. Shaving a few db using a single band compressor/limiter won't cause pumping on a decent mix--I was just giving an idea of what to listen for to know when you need to back off (i.e. the down side of the process)

 

Regardless of how popular multiband compressors are in the home studios, they aren't used to get "hot" commercial releases.

 

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression--did I clarify?

[Scott Fraser]

<>

 

No, not really, although they can fix mixes that are spectrally skewed. The whole point of a multiband compressor is to be able to shape dynamics differently for different spectral bands. That CAN mean making it operate as a dynamic equalizer, but it can also mean you can tame overactive dynamics which exist just in a given frequency band.

 

<< Shaving a few db using a single band compressor/limiter won't cause pumping on a decent mix>>

 

Right, just a few db of gain reduction is too subtle to cause pumping, unless it's a really crappy conmpressor.

 

<>

 

I don't know about home studios, but multiband compression is absolutely in major use in mastering for the precise purpose of providing extremely loud perceived masters.

 

Scott Fraser

[Billster]

Thank you, Scott Fraser.

 

In my experience, the biggest culprit in causing compressor "pumping" is the low frequency, high energy, very spiky transient instrument that lays the foundation of most rock grooves - the kick drum. Using the multi-band lets me isolate the frequency band where the kick is wreaking havoc, and ease off the compression there, while letting me smooth out the mids and highs with a gentle hand on the compression of those areas.

 

Now, by using a single broadband compressor and setting it gently so as not to induce pumping caused by the prevalent kick drum energy, you might get a similar result that doesn't spoil the mids and highs, but you are sacrificing control.

[Fumblyfingers]

Interesting thread. I will tell you with such experts in this field as Bill@welcome home and others....I really cannot speak with any authority at all as basically I don't know what I am doing compared to these guys who do this for a living.

 

I will tell you what I do though....it is simple although may be completely wrong.

 

I also noticed that even though I had my levels as hot as I could get without clipping, my final mix would always be much lower than my bought tunes in iTunes or on purchased cd's. I tried using limiters and compressors etc but it just did not do it for me.

 

So I got Ozone 3 from Izotope. I bounce my mix to a .aif file, take that file and import it into a new session, create a Master track and put Ozone on it and I select a preset that I like and then tweak each parameter from there.

 

Right off the bat, with the preset I start with, I notice a big increase in level even though the faders don't get much higher.... and they are just below clipping and stay very even...the multiband dynamics and the loudness maximizer....and the reverbs are better for an overall 'verb than my one reverb plug in I have.

 

Ozone has...

 

Paragraphic EQ

Mastering Reverb....Room and Plate

Loudness Maximizer

Multiband Harmonic Exciter

Multiband Dynamics....compressors

Multiband Stereo Imaging

 

I am still very green at using it and I am sure there are better Mastering suites out there, it is the only one I could afford at the time. I like it though. I have used it on a drum track also to tame it a bit...it worked as I wanted it to.

 

So that's what I do....whether it is right or wrong is another story. Mostly I just goof around right now in my studio as I learn more. So I record little things and try different stuff on them.

 

If I was really serious about a mix I would probably approach it differently.....I would take it to a real studio and have a real engineer have a go at it.

[Big Red 67]

So, I am listening to JIMI. Every time I hear fumbly post! hehehe

 

I have a live version of a bad compressor setting. I borrowed a rig. (My Ex.) The bloom was off the hook. It was cool in one sense, not cool in another. I had never used a pre with a compressor, so I did not know what was causing it until I thought it through later. Lesson, if you hear a "bloom" in the mix it is a compressor that is over compressing.

[Sunbreak Music]

Originally posted by Scott Fraser:

 

I don't know about home studios, but multiband compression is absolutely in major use in mastering for the precise purpose of providing extremely loud perceived masters.

 

Scott Fraser

The MEs that I know won't use it, unless something is wrong w/ the mix. As far as control goes, compression on individual instruments for a solid mix seems like a better approach.

 

I'm not saying I haven't used it, but that's why I'm not a mastering engineer.

 

Modified classic gear and slamming converters goes a lot further in the loudness wars.

[Scott Fraser]

<< The MEs that I know won't use it, unless something is wrong w/ the mix.>>

 

Every mastering engineer uses the tools which they think will yield the best result. I've been mastering professionally for 30 some years & I use multiband compression because it allows me to get results I can't get with normal compressors. You can get a lot more subtle if you choose, or you can abuse the heck out it & do serious audio damage.

 

<< As far as control goes, compression on individual instruments for a solid mix seems like a better approach.>>

 

Yes, but the mastering engineer isn't involved at that point, so a multiband device allows some options which are unavailable with single band compression.

 

<>

 

You can get much louder with software dynamics control because software can employ a lookahead detector, resulting in absolutely zero attack times.

 

Scott Fraser

[Fumblyfingers]

Scott, I know you must work with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and that your profession is one that is as much about all the various processes involved, as much as it is about having a great set of ears for musicality.

 

But having said that, have you seen or used Ozone3 and if so what do you think of it regarding use by a layman type home studio recordist? At $250 it was all I could afford.

 

Further, can you recommend a good book on beginning Mastering?

 

Thanks.

[miroslav]

While I agree that there is a "make it louder" trend...I have to wonder why people are so preoccupied with it, that they feel their production is always inferior until it meets or exceeds some preconceived notion or "standard" of required loudness...

right out of the box???

 

Folks...what are you selling...your music, the song, the performance...

...or the loudness of the CD...???

 

Heck, as long as your productions are not totally "wimpy" level-wise...the reality of it is that if your song is a few dB softer than someone else's...so what...?

All the listener has to do is turn up the volume if they want it louder....

That waywhenever one of those OVERLYCOMPRESSEDINYOURFACELOUDSONGS kicks inpeople will actually TURN IT downas it will be too annoying to listen to.

 

We are killing our ears and training them NOT to comprehend anything that hasnt been ironed out and pumped up with over-compression.

 

When you want to get someone's attention...

...speaking softly works better than SCREAMING at them.

[Scott Fraser]

<< have you seen or used Ozone3 and if so what do you think of it regarding use by a layman type home studio recordist? At $250 it was all I could afford.>>

 

HI Fumbly:

I haven't used Ozone yet, but I've perused their site. I must say it's one of the more interesting looking suite of mastering tools I've seen. I currently use a combination of Waves & UAD plugs for mastering, along with my secret weapon, a freeware phase scope called PScope. I haven't downloaded a demo of Ozone just because I'm too damn busy & once you get a system of stuff that works really well you don't have a lot of need to change things. I'll rave for just a moment about the Waves C4. It is a multiband dynamics controller which does a lot more than just compress. You can expand a given band, which is great for getting a snare to pop more dynamically without a big EQ boost which would unbalance the mix. Great stuff. The downside is that it is only available as part of an expensive bundle & requires an iLok.

The truth is, though, that it all comes down to well trained ears, taste & experience. An experienced mastering engineer can get great results from middle of the road gear, while a novice can make a mess in the most advanced mastering room on the planet. It's not about the gear, it's about the guy sitting in the big chair.

 

<

 

Bob Katz has what is probably the best book on mastering ever written. I forget the exact title, but he has a website, probably www.digitaldomain.com, & I'm sure that will lead to his book.

 

Scott Fraser

[Sunbreak Music]

Originally posted by Scott Fraser:

<< The MEs that I know won't use it, unless something is wrong w/ the mix.>>

 

Every mastering engineer uses the tools which they think will yield the best result. I've been mastering professionally for 30 some years & I use multiband compression because it allows me to get results I can't get with normal compressors. You can get a lot more subtle if you choose, or you can abuse the heck out it & do serious audio damage.

 

<< As far as control goes, compression on individual instruments for a solid mix seems like a better approach.>>

 

Yes, but the mastering engineer isn't involved at that point, so a multiband device allows some options which are unavailable with single band compression.

 

<>

 

You can get much louder with software dynamics control because software can employ a lookahead detector, resulting in absolutely zero attack times.

 

Scott Fraser

True re: it being too late by the time it's in your hands--but that's why I thought it relevant to the original question. You can get solid, hot mixes w/out using multiband. These days instead of focusing on mixing, people are led to believe that slapping a plug on the bus will yield "commercial" results and it just ain't the case.

 

There are many ways of getting a superloud mix that don't involve software at all, but it's probably beyond boring to most and is getting OT. We've got some of the same tools, but most likely employ them differently.

 

[Rhino Madness]

Originally posted by Scott Fraser:

Bob Katz has what is probably the best book on mastering ever written. I forget the exact title, but he has a website, probably www.digitaldomain.com, & I'm sure that will lead to his book.

 

Scott Fraser

Here is the site: http://www.digido.com/ .

 

Even if you don't buy the book , browse around and you'll see that Mr. Katz has excellent info on his site (check the articles and FAQ).

[Scott Fraser]

<< You can get solid, hot mixes w/out using multiband.>>

 

Definitely, & I would add that multiband compressor/expanders can also be used for extremely subtle shading as well, which reveals, & in fact enhances dynamic contrast. I get the sense you feel they are primarily for the home enthusiast trying to put a "louder" bandaid on poor mixes, & just wanted to say that they have very useful pro applications too.

 

<< These days instead of focusing on mixing, people are led to believe that slapping a plug on the bus will yield "commercial" results and it just ain't the case.>>

 

We need to dissuade people that louder equals better, & to rediscover the inherent musicality & drama available when there are changes in dynamics. Unfortunately a lot of people are willing to believe the marketing hype of software (& hardware) manufacturers who would have you believe that a plugin or device can take the place of years of serious study & experience.

 

Scott Fraser

[Sunbreak Music]

Originally posted by Scott Fraser:

<< You can get solid, hot mixes w/out using multiband.>>

 

Definitely, & I would add that multiband compressor/expanders can also be used for extremely subtle shading as well, which reveals, & in fact enhances dynamic contrast. I get the sense you feel they are primarily for the home enthusiast trying to put a "louder" bandaid on poor mixes, & just wanted to say that they have very useful pro applications too.

 

<< These days instead of focusing on mixing, people are led to believe that slapping a plug on the bus will yield "commercial" results and it just ain't the case.>>

 

We need to dissuade people that louder equals better, & to rediscover the inherent musicality & drama available when there are changes in dynamics. Unfortunately a lot of people are willing to believe the marketing hype of software (& hardware) manufacturers who would have you believe that a plugin or device can take the place of years of serious study & experience.

 

Scott Fraser

Very true.

 

I've got a hardware multiband in the rack, so I'm obviously not opposed to the concept

 

I would say that undoubtedly the biggest market for those plugs is the home studio or hobbyist--they're priced affordably, and have one helluva marketing machine.

 

I just try to encourage people to focus on what they need to instead of a magic bullet. A few hundred bucks worth of acoustic treatment goes a lot further than a plug-in. We know that something that's louder has the illusion of being better (at least upon first listen), but in reality it's just a flawed mix that's louder.

 

It's the mix that's important. It should be as good as it can be before it lands in your hands, but I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir.

[Justus A. Picker]

It's the mix that's important. It should be as good as it can be before it lands in your hands, but I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir.

What are some of the things to look for in a "good" mix in terms of frequency balance, peak rms, average rms, etc? What should be sent to the mastering engineer?

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Heres the thing, fellas.... concentrate on making it sound good.

 

I could go on for days about the destructyive results of what we call 'hypercompression' and the psycho-acoustical results. Instead I'll point you to one article that does a decent job of explaining it.

 

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

 

I'm to saying that you don't need to have levels that get close to commercial releases. But I can tell you that a lot of commercial releases sacrifice quality for volume, and I have no dresire to emulate that.

 

I can also tell you that Bob Orban, the man who's company produces many of the output protection limiters for radio stations, has written extensively on the detrimental affects of hypercompression, and explains how hyper compressed recordings are treated by his processors... which is to make them sound -softer- than less compressed recordings...exactly the opposite of what the record label ass---- er execs who demanded maximum volume had in what we generously call their minds.

 

Worry more about tone, and the total sound... can you hear all of the elements? Is there unwanted distortion or harshness? There are many, many things you need to listen for, besides maximum level.

 

 

Bill

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

... should be sent to the mastering engineer?

The best recording that you can muster, if you don't want to pay him to fix your mistakes. Oh, and leave the poor guy some headroom in which to work. If you have maximised the levels, then the first thing that he will have to do to fix anything is to lower the levels.

 

By the way FYI side issue, MTV will not accept any recordings with levels above -6dB.

 

 

Bill

[A String]

Great stuff guys!

 

My question may be a little naive, but what is the best use of a compressor? I have compressor plugins in my recording software, but I'm never sure how to use them correctly.

[Scott Fraser]

<

 

A compressor is used to decrease the peak to average ratio. If the average level of a mix is hovering around -15, with some peaks going all the way to 0dbfs, your CD is going to sound fairly quiet. You can then put a compressor on this mix, achieve 6 db of gain reduction on those peaks, then bring the overall gain up 6 db & you'll have a mix that is now 6 db hotter than before, & hopefully, with a sufficiently transparent compressor & well chosen threshold, ratio, knee and attack & release times, you will still perceive plenty of contrast between the average level & the peaks.

 

<>

 

It's a tricky issue that just takes lots of experiemntation to understand properly. It's possible to do a lot of audio damage by mis-setting a compressor, so better to stay conservative with the amount of gain reduction. If you hear the compressor working, it's probably way too much. Try using just a 2:1 or 4:1 ratio, yielding 3 to 4 db of gain reduction.

 

Scott Fraser