Loud mixes????

[bouldersoundguy]

Hey! Someone had to.


Seriously, Ive been reading all the posts. Thanks for the responses one and all. I cant help but thinking I'm not alone in wanting to find out these secrets of the universe.

All theses different DB scales are starting to drive me nuts. LOL Im starting to think that dbfs really stand for "DB fer fucks sake". I have an analog Durrough Loudness meter that measures average and peaks That's cool and easy. But some daw scales aren't making sense yet.

I'm coming from a world with simple rules, don't go over zero.


It was mentioned that bass freq being too much contributes to a lower in volume mix.......If that's the case, how the hell do you explain Hip Hop and EDM???


On a more specific note, what DB scale does Protools use?

For simple level in digital audio it's dBFS. Zero dBFS is the highest number so everything else is some amount below that.

Analog metering is more about the sweet spot between the noise floor and distortion. In analog the 0 is your target rather than an absolute ceiling as in digital. Most converters relate -18dBFS to 0dBVU.

When dealing with dynamics and loudness RMS, LUFS, crest factor etc. are different ways to measure.

 

[RFR]

They're also pretty much deliberately smashed, generally heavily distorted, and usually pump and breathe pretty heavily - often deliberately. If you're trying to avoid those things...


This isn't really the point. No system anywhere is going to give much meaningful output at 20Hz, and you wouldn't actually hear it anyway. There are a lot of things that we can do to a mix - especially in the generally DC coupled world of ITB mixing - that can create what amount to extremely low frequency content. Those things are going to basically just push your overall level up without adding anything you care about. You won't be to get the music as loud as you might otherwise before clipping or smashing into a limiter.

So it seems there are a few responses about uneeded low end content. I would imagine running analog through a board you'd be "naturally" compressing that stuff.

With tape and a console its not so complicated as with a daw (for me). I just fiddle with knobs and compare to a CD run in on an extra input. get it to sound good, and match up levels.

 

[miroslav]

There are a lot of things that we can do to a mix...

Well...maybe that's the difference.
I don't really try to "do" anything to the mix that hasn't already been done during tracking.
I'm not saving the song for the mix stage...most of the sound is happening at the time of tracking.
So my point is...when I track my drums, bass, guitars, etc...the stuff that the mics record IS the mix, and I see no reason to have some default "roll everything off at this point" approach....as that is a very generic way of mixing.

Now...if you are going to take your tracks and then apply all kinds of post tracking processing/FX to them, and layering tons of stuff together that turns those tracks sonically into something you never actually recorded, and your LF gets so overloaded, and things like that...OK, then you do what you have to.

I'm more into tracking instruments as they sound naturally. and that's how I mix, that is the total basis of the mix.
I'm not fabricating anything that wasn't there originally or doing some kind of "sound design" stuff were the sound is created almost entirely in the DAW.

So the point is...having these blanket approaches to mixing is not realistic.
It's the same reason I hate to give out "numbers" to people or when I see others doing it..."I generally like to boost my guitars at 3k Hz by 2 dB so they cut through better"....etc...etc.
That stuff is too generic and makes gross assumptions that every mix is the same and should be treated generally the same way.
It's probably one of the reasons so much of the modern stuff has the same general sound quality to it.
Same thing with loudness...like everything has to hit a certain loudness mark. I wouldn't be surprised that some people are using loudness meters to make sure their stuff is hitting the highest marks possible....that is their focus.

 

[RFR]

IMO...and considering that you, like me, do your tracking in the analog domain, to tape...just get those nice juicy signals down during tracking...and after you transfer to DAW...ignore the digital meters.

OK...maybe not totally...but the point is, the signal is the signal is the signal. So, if it's nice and hot and not distorting in the analog domain, it will be fine, and you can simply take it from there with your processing and mixing, and as long as you don't increase or lower the overage level by a lot...at the end of the line, you will have a decent mix that will be "mastering ready and friendly, and you can then hit it with some of the many steps to "pump up the volume".
IMO...tracking ini the analog/tape domain sets you up in a much better gain staging position than what some people end up with when they track right into the DAW and get all kinds of weird levels...and then after that, it's a constant tug of war with the mix balance and the loudness and the dynamics.

The other question is ....ho loud are you shooting for?
I personally discard those mixes I hear that are so RIDICULOUSLY LOUD that you immediately reach for the volume knob to turn them down.
Those are my loudness references...and I never feel like I'm missing out because I don't have my mixes that RIDICULOUSLY LOUD.

You can attain a failry loud, yet well balanced, dynamically interesting mix...and if it's a bit shy compared to the RIDICULOUSLY LOUD stuff...so what. let the listener deal with it.
I find that if I run through YouTube or Soundcloud or even the better commercial stuff...they are all over the place.
Not to mention...more and more of the streaming services/sites are employing their own loudness algorithms...so that kinda evens things out, just like broadcast radio use to do (and still does)...and for those delivery outlets, if you do have a mix that is RIDICULOUSLY LOUD...their loudness algorithms will make it sound shittier. The stuff that's lower in loudness isn't as negatively affected.

How Loud am I shooting for.........well, it was you brought up that my mixes could be louder.

That got me thinking. I then took stuff from the clinic that I thought were good mixes and took them off my phone and put them in the computer. I immediately noticed a difference in in both volume levels and levels on the meters.

I'm not shooting for super loud smashed as I stated before.......just a bit louder. Problem is when I push up the master fader to get similar levels, it is then in the red. Dont want that.

Per my reaper trial period, Ive only been involved with the digital world for 150 some days. LOL (still evaluating)
Protools a month less.

So I still have a hell of a lot to learn in this new world.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I'm not shooting for super loud smashed as I stated before.......just a bit louder. Problem is when I push up the master fader to get similar levels, it is then in the red. Dont want that.

That means the mix has a high crest factor (ratio of peak level to average level). The fix is simple, take the peaks down so you can raise the overall level. Either find the offending track and address the peak there or use a decent mastering limiter on the mix.

 

[Robus]

Most of the tracks you are hearing at the Clinic show some attempt to incorporate mastering into the mixing process. Whether this improves or degrades the quality of the sound is a matter of opinion. A few of us regard mixing and mastering as distinct processes and don't worry too much about the level of the mix. It sounds like you've got some volume spikes in your tracks. There was a discussion of this in a recent thread, can't remember which. Basically, you can use a limiter or track the spikes down to the source and fix them manually. I prefer the latter. Listen to those who are emphasizing the importance of high passing.

 

[miroslav]

How Loud am I shooting for.........well, it was you brought up that my mixes could be louder.

Yeah...I know I said that, but I just meant that I thought you had room to bring it up some more without hurting it.

I guess in this thread, it seemed like you were asking about how some guys get those RIDICULOUSLY LOUD mixes...which I don't think your stuff needs. Like you just said...it needs to be maybe just a bit louder.
The stuff I've heard from you is has a lot of dynamics, and the arrangements and mixes are "sparse"...basic 1-2 guitars, bass drums, vocals stuff, so you can hear single notes and the picking of the strings, and every nuance...
...and if you really pushed that stuff to get those RIDICULOUSLY LOUD mixes...it would get all fucked up, IMO.

The guys doing the real heavy Hip-Hop, Metal, and that screaming guitars/vocals indie Pop/Rock stuff...they can get away with it, because all the instruments and vocals turn into sonic hash, and that seems to be what they want....there are no dynamics, no "ear candy"...just flat-line sound that starts slammed and stays that way throughout.

Like BSG said...you don't have a hard road to get more level....just a little mix "house cleaning".

That means the mix has a high crest factor (ratio of peak level to average level). The fix is simple, take the peaks down so you can raise the overall level. Either find the offending track and address the peak there or use a decent mastering limiter on the mix.

Yeah...I like to do a couple of passes of manual peak adjustment of the most offending peaks/tracks....then when those are reigned in some there might be a more subtle application of compression/limiting.

 

[4DBoy]

There's a difference between wearing a T-shirt with a logo and handing out flyers to everyone you meet. The former is considered normal while the latter is considered pushy. You basically walked into a room of strangers and started pushing flyers into people's hands. That's why I won't be clicking on any of your links.

Fair analogy. Although the flyer was accurate and helpful. I got the message a few threads back, but thanks anyway. Nothing like belt and braces.

 

[Greg_L]

I see no reason to have some default "roll everything off at this point" approach....as that is a very generic way of mixing.

This ^^^^^

The "roll off everything below x" is just generic scripted internet groupthink that just gets repeated over and over.

 

[miroslav]

Fair analogy. Although the flyer was accurate and helpful. I got the message a few threads back, but thanks anyway. Nothing like belt and braces.

You can put a website link in your signature block...that's pretty common...though I think you need to have a certain number of posts before you can do that...which is mainly done prevent the "drive-bys" and show who is here to be part of the community, and who is here just to spam their wares.

 

[jkuehlin]

"...but...but my mixer goes to 11!!"

 

[ashcat_lt]

They're also pretty much deliberately smashed, generally heavily distorted, and usually pump and breathe pretty heavily - often deliberately. If you're trying to avoid those things...


This isn't really the point. No system anywhere is going to give much meaningful output at 20Hz, and you wouldn't actually hear it anyway. There are a lot of things that we can do to a mix - especially in the generally DC coupled world of ITB mixing - that can create what amount to extremely low frequency content. Those things are going to basically just push your overall level up without adding anything you care about. You won't be to get the music as loud as you might otherwise before clipping or smashing into a limiter.

I wasn't actually finished with this post, but I'm at work, and had to log off the computer I was on, and didn't want to lose what I had typed, so I just tried to make it look like a coherent statement and hit submit.

I intended to expand this to the point re: smaller speakers not reproducing low end and the idea that this somehow alleviates the issue. That's just plain not true. Just because you can't hear those lower frequencies on a given playback system doesn't mean they're not taking up all of your headroom and keeping the rest of the mix down. Whatever medium we're trying to mix to, we can really only get it so loud. It goes from 0 to 1, and if you've got low frequencies taking up 0.9 of that, then your mids and highs have to fit into that last 0.1. Now, if you can only hear the mids and highs, the overall mix sounds like it's only 0.1 loud, and will sound noticeably quieter than some other mix where the proportion is more like 0.5/0.5. (Please note that these are not meant to be realistic numbers. I have no idea what a "correct" proportion might be, or even how you might quantify it. Just trying to make a point)

It is (of course) best to get the proper frequency balance in arrangement and tracking so that it doesn't take much EQ fuckery at mix time to fit everything in, but we're not all always mixing things that we have tracked, sometimes we get stuck with a great performance of a not great sound, etc, and we do what we must.

But I guess to back up a little, it actually doesn't take much to start building up subsonic content in a mix. Certain modulation effects - and even sometimes some compression settings - can start to look like extremely low frequency content that can mess with your headroom. Some other things can cause asymmetry in the waveform which looks like a DC offset, which is about the same thing as adding a 0Hz "tone".

All of those types of things usually do get rolled off in analog gear because most analog stages are AC coupled: they literally run the signal through a high pass filter before passing it on to the next stage. This will be built in at the component level with nothing you can do to adjust or defeat it. The goal is to keep DC bias voltages from interacting/interfering with each other, to "protect" you circuit from what the next circuit in line might be doing, as well as to make sure that our circuit ain't messing with its neighbors. There can be tens if not twenties of these HPF stages in a typical analog signal path and while they are usually designed to not touch much of the audible spectrum, but they do add up.

Most DAW mix engines do not actually do any of that. Some plugins do, but many just don't, so you can end up with DC offsets and subsonic crap creeping in and taking up headroom for no good reason. Now I'll admit that part is a lot of words about something which is very rarely a real problem, though I tend to "bookend" my Master bus if not other tracks in the mix with an HPF at 20Hz just to kind of make sure.

The thing about actual bass frequencies is important to keep in mind. Especially in our home recording environments with smallish monitors and questionable acoustics, it is very easy to not really realize how much content is building up in that lower octave or two until you get to the point where you're trying to maximize volume without smashing the mix to death.

 

[RFR]

Hmmmmm. There's something to that. I've noticed bass stuff that was NEVER there in the console when just mixing from tape. (I'm sure it was there, but dealt with somehow)
Now, these same exact tracks in the daw will have low freq info that I have to deal with. My mixer must have some of this HP circuitry to deal with this, because I've gone back and forth between ITB and console and in the console certain LF problems dissapear.

 

[4DBoy]

You can put a website link in your signature block...that's pretty common...though I think you need to have a certain number of posts before you can do that...which is mainly done prevent the "drive-bys" and show who is here to be part of the community, and who is here just to spam their wares.

Cheers for the advice. I'm a genuine contributor and I appreciate that time served is my only proof. I'm pleased I stumbled on this community because I could talk sound & music all day!!

 

[RFR]

Well, I've watched some of your videos and find them to be pretty good.

No one here is anti- instructional videos.
It's just a matter of trust, and that gets developed slowly, just like in the real world.
There was recently a fellow who was 'claiming' to be looking forward to being 'part of this community'. Hah! He's gone and all his posts were about his youtube channel and defending it.

On the other hand there are long term forum members who have started channels and they've been welcomed with open arms.

This place is very much anti- spam and new folks sometimes have to overcome that.

 

[4DBoy]

Hmmmmm. There's something to that. I've noticed bass stuff that was NEVER there in the console when just mixing from tape. (I'm sure it was there, but dealt with somehow)
Now, these same exact tracks in the daw will have low freq info that I have to deal with. My mixer must have some of this HP circuitry to deal with this, because I've gone back and forth between ITB and console and in the console certain LF problems dissapear.

I think someone may have mentioned already that it isn't just any one thing, but a multitude of small things that will get you there. I pretty much HPF every track in my mix that isn't bass or kick. In some genres there is also an inherent buildup of boxy frequencies too, Usually around 350hz-450hz that I scoop out with a broad Q around 2-3db. This will usually be applied to my drum buss, but can be anywhere you hear too much low-mid buildup. Most of the frequencies I mention are general, you really need to use your ears with your mix and make the decision of which frequencies help your mix. All of this will clearly help your headroom and as long as there are no peak spikes (as someone mentioned), you'll make gains.

 

[4DBoy]

Well, I've watched some of your videos and find them to be pretty good.

No one here is anti- instructional videos.
It's just a matter of trust, and that gets developed slowly, just like in the real world.
There was recently a fellow who was 'claiming' to be looking forward to being 'part of this community'. Hah! He's gone and all his posts were about his youtube channel and defending it.

On the other hand there are long term forum members who have started channels and they've been welcomed with open arms.

This place is very much anti- spam and new folks sometimes have to overcome that.

I see now how my including a link was pretty clumsy and presumptuous - especially given that you've had the experience of the 'fly-by' self promotional types. Hopefully you'll get to know me better with time and know that I am not that. I've been doing this for years, analogue tape to DAW. I play in a number of bands, I'm a songwriter, musician and sound enthusiast. My website isn't my day job, it's just an engine for my passion and I am very generous with my time when I interact with like-minded people. I see the comments here and there are so many people giving up their time with great advice. No more promo from me, just written contributions. Thanks for the invaluable insight. Cheers 4D

 

[RFR]

Just like miro said, you can put a link in your signature block. Just need to get the post count up.
Personally I like your channel.

 

[ashcat_lt]

There was an interview with some dude I've never actually heard in TapeOp a couple years ago. Dude was saying "protect the high end". Like, always be conscious of who you're letting do what in the top octave or two. I have always done the same in the low end.

A real surround system has full range speakers all around and then a seperate LFE channel that goes super low. You can put things in whatever speaker you want, and even let them have a bit of thump to them, but you only send the things that you really want to shake the room to that LFE channel. You can use it all the time or it gets overwhelming, sometimes uncomfortable, and/or becomes a drone and loses its impact.

It's kind of a strange metaphor, but it's how I look at this question. The best way to achieve this is in arrangement, performance, and engineering at the track level. Filters help when those things fail.

 

[drtechno]

To reply about people going from tape to digital. (I don't know why the quote didn't post in the reply)



ok. so his "SRL" (know as standard recording level") should be : into 24 bit converters: 0VU = -18 dbfs into 16 bit conversion: -14dbfs

This is an unwritten convention but after talking with a few dozen techs and engineers, we agreed upon the two standards behind closed doors.