Volume Matching

D

dsealer

New member
I'm trying to get 13 songs ready for the Mastering process. About 1/2 of the songs were recorded 20 years ago using a stand alone recorder. So there is some difference in tone and sound which I'm hoping to fix with some eq'ing.

My question is about getting overall volumes in the same ballpark. I am going song by song and matching as closely as possible the "Intergrated" Lufs and the "Peak" Lufs.

Does this process seem ok? I'm shooting for about 22 Intergrated and -6db Peak.
Is there anything else I should be doing or is there a better process?

Thanks,
Don.....
 
I load each one into a master proj.
Each song gets it's own track. And each of them with their start point butt up near the previous above's end point.
Tracks 1--- whatever like that, down the time line.
All volumes, gains, eq --everything 'zeroed out or disengaged.

Now you can bounce around one to the next along the time line quick' comparing- loudness song to song.

Some that stick out 'too loud -as in already more compressed or limited in and among them, might get pulled back.
Some with wider dynamic range -or have higher stray peaks (again- out of the initial 'norm of the proj), are made note of.
Now we decide if some get additional peak reduction, and/or compression, level adjustment etc. -and your Lufs too. (But ears ought to decide correct? (After all ..that is what our listeners are going to be using! :>)

This would be my initial run-through'. Now you have an overall view -with the project in context -where things have landed, prior to moving ahead.

I might be old school though. ;)
 
I do something similar to what MJ and Mixsit stated. I load each mix into its own track, and each track receives it own EQ and final compression (I tried doing a single, but didn't work well for me). I look at the largest peak of each as a gauge to get and idea. Get them all close to each other at peak levels, then do the final with my ears.

That flow helps me to not struggle at the beginning and get everything sort of calibrated. Just seemed to help me to process it easier that way since I really don't have that much experience. I throw a reference in the project to get my perception set. Time consuming, but when it is done right, I think it makes the collection (I am avoiding the word album) sound cohesive like all the songs belong together.
 
So you add compression and other effects to your stereo tracks when your mixing, before the Mastering process?

Don.....
 
Are you doing the mastering step yourself?

It sounds like you're starting with a bunch of completed mixes, so if you're doing it and working with mixed stereo tracks, I probably wouldn't do anything. Not sure I'd do anything if I was sending it out if I was looking at stereo mixes, save maybe put them in the same format (sample rate, 24-bit, non-lossy). You could normalize to a fixed setting, but generally the loudness thing is a mastering step, and even EQ is something I'd leave to the mastering step, since that's where you probably want to do minor tweaks to make things sound "of a piece" if the target is an album/CD. At least, that's my thinking.
 
I'm not planning on mastering these songs. I don't think I'd do a god job, so yes, I'm planning to have someone do the Mastering. My question was, about getting mixes ready for the Mastering process. I read everywhere that engineers like some "headroom" to do their work. So I'm trying to get all my mixes to stereo tracks, without effects and somewhere in the same volume range. Then I will move on to getting them mastered. My question was asking if volume ranges as I described would be ok or not.
Thanks for your reply,
Don.....
 
That volume range would be fine but if you’re sending them out then I’d just use a gain plugin or normalize in Audacity, something like that and leave compression and limiting to the mastering folks.

Of course you could ask them exactly what they want, can’t you?

I never completely understood that headroom thing because they can do the same thing to bring the level down before mastering. (Sometimes I think it’s just what’s said to keep folks from compressing and limiting the snot out of their mixes before mastering. Or maybe they just want to make sure what you get back is louder than what you sent...)

Now if your mixes do span a wide spectrum of sound and techniques I’d be sure to pick one or two and ask them to work towards something around that/those. If it’s an impossible ask they’ll let you know I suspect.
 
If I were mastering it I'd want there to be some headroom just to be sure it wasn't clipping, and so they didn't feel incentive to start processing the mix too much, before it got to me.
 
I don't plan to do any processing on the stereo mixes. I'm adjusting my track mixes to somewhere around the numbers stated previously and then bouncing those tracks to a stereo track, without any processing.

Don....
 
dsealer said:
I'm not planning on mastering these songs. I don't think I'd do a god job, so yes, I'm planning to have someone do the Mastering. My question was, about getting mixes ready for the Mastering process. I read everywhere that engineers like some "headroom" to do their work. So I'm trying to get all my mixes to stereo tracks, without effects and somewhere in the same volume range. Then I will move on to getting them mastered. My question was asking if volume ranges as I described would be ok or not.
Click to expand...
dsealer said:
I don't plan to do any processing on the stereo mixes. I'm adjusting my track mixes to somewhere around the numbers stated previously and then bouncing those tracks to a stereo track, without any processing.
Click to expand...
dsealer said:
So you add compression and other effects to your stereo tracks when your mixing, before the Mastering process?
Click to expand...
Oh boy. Now -I hope, getting the real picture.
This is about 'finishing and exporting mixes. Not 'prepping tracks for mastering?

Reset -This is about mixing ..(?

Mixing = Getting them to sound as close as you can to what you like, within your abilities.
Don't mistakenly chase 'loudness for the wrong reason (i.e. faked out by compression or limiting.) 'Compare, learn- at equal play-back loudness.

If you're not sure -or up to speed on 'compression on the mix, leave it to the mastering engineer is the general thought. (Assumes 'mastering guy (-oops, or Gal' :>) is indeed better than you :)

Don't clip your mixes / mix output bus

Export.

Then.. 'Prepped for mastering, as it usually applies, and does here, is getting them clean copies of the files, with clear instructions for track order, and other notes or info that might apply.
In other words, clear accurate info from you, and communications -as needed between you.

I'm not sure where these Lufs' targets even apply. Implies 'density of mix, peal-to average ratios, all final mastered version decisions.
 
Mixsit. I am preparing them to send them out for mastering. I've already mixed the tracks to my liking. I'm simply asking are the volume levels of the bounced stereo tracks mentioned, ok to send to a mastering engineer. Is the process I mentioned, ok or, not ok or, unnecessary? Where should the volume of my stereo tracks be to send for mastering?
Don.....
 
If the peak is at -6 that’s plenty of headroom. I think the confusion is using LUFS for a pre-master level measure since it usually implies an overall level of a finished/mastered mix ready for distribution/streaming/pressing.

So long as the originals were mixed with headroom and not clipped and then just dialed back it shouldn’t matter.

Really, ask the mastering house what they want to be certain.
 
Thanks again Keith. You've given me an answer that I was looking for. I didn't understand about Lufs only pertaing to the Mastering process. I thought controlling 2 parameters as I bounce to a stereo track would be helpful when the mastering engineer gets the tracks. All of my tracks max peak about -6.0 to -8.0.
Don.....

Thanks,
Don.....
 
[MENTION=195976]dsealer[/MENTION], unless all of your songs were the same and had the same dynamic range, it wouldn't be possible for them to end up with the same "average" loudness (integrated LUFS) and peak by only adjusting a fader or gain [plugin]. Getting to that common sound is almost always the result of compression/limiting applied to a mix (that, ideally, still has some dynamic range to work with). Does that make sense?
 
Render your mixes to floating point files and it's a non-issue. Yes, try to use good gain staging, don't clip or over compress unless you really want that sound. Then just bounce it where it lies. Don't even look at the meter. In FP, there's so much space between noise floor and ceiling that nobody in their right mind actually cares whether the highest peak is -20dbFS or +20. The adjustment is trivial at the ME's end, and if they complain you should probably look for somebody else to do the job.

Fixed point files are for final distribution only. That's the only time the actual values on the meters matter at all. Before that time it's pretty arbitrary. Again, "gain staging" issues with non-linear plugins aside.
 
ashcat_lt said:
Render your mixes to floating point files and it's a non-issue. Yes, try to use good gain staging, don't clip or over compress unless you really want that sound. Then just bounce it where it lies. Don't even look at the meter. In FP, there's so much space between noise floor and ceiling that nobody in their right mind actually cares whether the highest peak is -20dbFS or +20. The adjustment is trivial at the ME's end, and if they complain you should probably look for somebody else to do the job.

Fixed point files are for final distribution only. That's the only time the actual values on the meters matter at all. Before that time it's pretty arbitrary. Again, "gain staging" issues with non-linear plugins aside.
Click to expand...
Question then. Given these are a collection of already rendered 'mixes from over these years, what advantage would there be to doing any changes to them prior to handing them over for mastering? If some are (or were) 'clipped, or 'level maximized on their original export or rendering as an example, any 'damage -or condition' is set.

The question might be what would be the point of him working on them at all prior to handing them over? The mastering person is going to have to do their own processes on them regardless.

Keeping head room is something for in the mix and/or into the mastering process is one thing.
But 'making head room I would think after they've been mixed and rendered already? is a bit of a fallacy.
It applies of course for the mastering person to provide himself with what ever working room hey may choose as 'prep into and through this (late) mastering process. But to say the OP ought to do it (as well?) seems in this case to be redundant.
 
Last edited:
dsealer said:
Mixsit. I am preparing them to send them out for mastering. I've already mixed the tracks to my liking. I'm simply asking are the volume levels of the bounced stereo tracks mentioned, ok to send to a mastering engineer. Is the process I mentioned, ok or, not ok or, unnecessary? Where should the volume of my stereo tracks be to send for mastering?
Don.....
Click to expand...

I'm going with unnecessary. See above :>)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top