Would this work...

[Christoffah]

The song is loaded in Cubase and I'm happy with all the levels in respect to each channel, it's sounding nice and balanced. The only thing is, the whole mix is constantly peaking, which is probably unacceptable (despite the fact that when comparing to a number of professionally mastered songs, a lot of them 'peak').

I'm a complete newbie to this, but these are the ideas I've had.

1) Turn each channel down by 1 dB, and then see if it peaks. If not, do it again, etc until it doesn't peak.

2) Or, just mixdown what I have, then take the volume down together. (something gives me a feeling this is a bad method, but I want your opinion).

I've heard on this forum that Cubase is bad for mastering. Why is this? I have Sound Forge somewhere, but have never really used it. Would this be better to master my CD? If so, why?

Many many thanks.
Chris.

[Cloneboy Studio]

If your whole mix is peaking there are a lot of problems, meaning that your channels are all set too high.

Try aiming for -12dbfs peaks and see how that works.

The way 24 bit digital works these days you'll still be getting your full resolution. You don't have to roll "hot" anymore.

[Christoffah]

Thanks for the advice.

Originally Posted by Cloneboy Studio

The way 24 bit digital works these days you'll still be getting your full resolution. You don't have to roll "hot" anymore.

Sorry, what did you mean by this quote? I read an article earlier saying that typically when a song is played to a person and then again but a little louder, the person always preferred it louder. I think this is because it sounds more energetic, which is definately the case with the music I'm producing here - I don't want my final result to be too quiet (because the physical energy will be lost), but not too loud because of peaking/clip problems...

Maybe the answer to "what is 'hot rolling?" might help me here.

[jmorris]

Im confused, why dont you just turn each track down? Or are you saying the tracks loaded hot. Did you import the tracks? I would not wait for 2 track format to get rid of peaks. If you want loud, get all your tracks as clean/not peaking as possible and get the loud from the mastering stage with compression/limiting.

[Christoffah]

I am able to turn each track down; it's just the other method I mentioned is obviously quicker and easier and doesn't involve trial/error. Is "loaded hot" meaning it was imported and initially peaking? The tracks are all being recorded and none are peaking when I put them in.. just the final mix peaks because it's probably too loud (although it sounds fine through my headphones and speakers).

Compressing and limiting.. can I apply those to the whole mix to get it as "loud" as possible without peaking? I'm using compression on my bass and drums which is making them sound excellent.

[jmorris]

In Sonar ,if I had this issue, I would group all the tracks together,then lower each fader. This enables me to move one fader and they all move. The only thing I can think of if the tracks were not peaking when recording but now are is either lower them or are you possible adding processing that is raising the gain? The compression you are adding during recording is fine, and yes more compression and/or limiting is common at mastering. When tracking, just go easy on compression so you still have some dynamics.

[Christoffah]

Originally Posted by jmorris

In Sonar ,if I had this issue, I would group all the tracks together,then lower each fader. This enables me to move one fader and they all move. The only thing I can think of if the tracks were not peaking when recording but now are is either lower them or are you possible adding processing that is raising the gain? The compression you are adding during recording is fine, and yes more compression and/or limiting is common at mastering. When tracking, just go easy on compression so you still have some dynamics.

Wow, you've made me see it a whole lot differently now! I always thought, just say you have two guitar channels that are X loud each, with both of them in the mix that takes your volume to X*2, that much closer to the "hot" area... is this not the case? Excluding the drums and bass, everything is mono: if I was to make the bass mono rather than stereo somehow would this be allowing more room for volume from elsewhere? Sorry I'm so new to this.

As for compression, the way it seems to be working on Cubase is to set it at volumes, such as -4dB, and then raising the fader to get it back the previous volume whilst still giving off the compressed sound. Is this correct?...

Hopefully I can find a way to do that group fade thing you mentioned, but in Cubase - that would be GREAT. I could easily just drag it down to the correct level rather than trial and error over 10 channels.

[jmorris]

I'm just guessing! Most, if not all compressors have a gain level,that is input and output. I thinking maybe you are not noticing the gain structure after you compress. You may wish to monitor the track( or preview as in my software) as you play with compression settings. If you do this you will be sure there a no clips. Try holding the shift button and clicking on the track numbers to group them all at once. Maybe a double click will work as in Sonar.
"I was to make the bass mono rather than stereo somehow would this be allowing more room for volume from elsewhere? Sorry I'm so new to this"
Mono or stereo will not be a factor.

[Christoffah]

Originally Posted by jmorris

I'm just guessing! Most, if not all compressors have a gain level,that is input and output. I thinking maybe you are not noticing the gain structure after you compress. You may wish to monitor the track( or preview as in my software) as you play with compression settings. If you do this you will be sure there a no clips. Try holding the shift button and clicking on the track numbers to group them all at once. Maybe a double click will work as in Sonar.
"I was to make the bass mono rather than stereo somehow would this be allowing more room for volume from elsewhere? Sorry I'm so new to this"
Mono or stereo will not be a factor.

Holding shift works but altering the fader only seems to work for the channel you are actually modifying unfortunately

I'm very shocked about the fact that mono/stereo isn't a factor here, I've learned a lot from this thread already! Does it work like this? If I have 5 channels at 5dB...then the final mix is also (and therefore) 5dB?

[jmorris]

Yes. I does not work as a cumulative. In other words if you have 3 tracks at 5 db, they don't total 15 db. Or, if I have 5 sticks of wood 2 feet tall each,they are all still 2 feet tall not 10 feet tall. It's not like adding weight to a scale. Damn, how many examples am I doing? Im becoming manic! I think you get my point. On the group track problem.You could just bring down all the tracks the same amount. There should be someway to tell just how much you are changing the level instead of eyeing.

[Nick98338]

When mixing digital, the sum of all individual tracks is not what you think it will be. You can have several individual tracks that don't "peak". But, when you mix them, the new mixed track does peak. I can't give a technical explanation, I just know it happens. The way that I have chosen to solve this is to lower the volume on each individual track, so that when I mix, the new mixed track doesn't peak. Mix, listen, go back to indiv. tracks, mix again, listen, go back, etc... Then once I've got my final stereo mix, I bring the volume of the whole thing up.

[tourettes5139]

Originally Posted by Christoffah

if I was to make the bass mono rather than stereo ......

You recorded your bass in stereo?

[Christoffah]

Originally Posted by tourettes5139

You recorded your bass in stereo?

Yeah, I did that by mistake haha. I realise now it wouldn't have much different at all, other than taking up double the disk space (and for all the tracks on a CD, it does start to add up!)

JMorris: "if I have 5 sticks of wood 2 feet tall each,they are all still 2 feet tall not 10 feet tall."

That was such a good example.. I thought it was always "adding weight to the scale" haha!

Nick98338 yeah I've come to realise the fact that they peak even if the individual tracks don't themselves.. maybe one or two of my sticks are slightly bigger than the rest without me realising....

Some brilliant advice here, thanks so much to everyone.

[mixsit]

Originally Posted by Christoffah

I'm very shocked about the fact that mono/stereo isn't a factor here, I've learned a lot from this thread already! Does it work like this? If I have 5 channels at 5dB...then the final mix is also (and therefore) 5dB?

Mono/stereo can be a factor. Two tracks panned hard would not pile up like the same pair in the center for example. If you combine two of the same signals, it goes up 6dB (or was it three? Any way, what can happen with a bunch of signals is a lot of random peak combinations plus the total average. The more tracks, the higher the build-up. In most software mixers (hopefully ) you have some headroom in the 'mixer and you can just bring it down at the master. But having the mix come in near zero (or less) with the master at zero is gererally a good indication that the mix is right where it should be too.
Hope that helps.
Wayne

[Cloneboy Studio]

Originally Posted by Christoffah

I read an article earlier saying that typically when a song is played to a person and then again but a little louder, the person always preferred it louder. I think this is because it sounds more energetic, which is definately the case with the music I'm producing here - I don't want my final result to be too quiet (because the physical energy will be lost), but not too loud because of peaking/clip problems...

There's just soooooo much wrong with this that I don't even want to touch it. Maybe someone else can answer this for you.

However, in my experience with recording I've found that "loud" is usually the antithesis of "good."

Originally Posted by Christoffah

Maybe the answer to "what is 'hot rolling?" might help me here.

What I meant was recording too loud.

-12db in the digital world was designed to equal 0db in the analog world.

[HangDawg]

Maybe you should try to determine which track or tracks are causing the problem and apply some compression to those tracks. It could be just a matter of using eq to remove some frequency build up as well. Or just turn all the tracks down 1/2 db.

[mixsit]

Originally Posted by Cloneboy Studio

There's just soooooo much wrong with this that I don't even want to touch it. Maybe someone else can answer this for you.

However, in my experience with recording I've found that "loud" is usually the antithesis of "good."

We could go with 'If one is just louder (even a bit louder) -but not changed in other ways, it sounds 'better' than the other. But if it's able to be louder simply due to loss of dynamic range, suckness quickly creeps in. Which is why it can be very enlightening to try them side by side, but at equal loudness.

[jmorris]

Originally Posted by mixsit

Mono/stereo can be a factor. Two tracks panned hard would not pile up like the same pair in the center for example. If you combine two of the same signals, it goes up 6dB (or was it three? Any way, what can happen with a bunch of signals is a lot of random peak combinations plus the total average. The more tracks, the higher the build-up. In most software mixers (hopefully ) you have some headroom in the 'mixer and you can just bring it down at the master. But having the mix come in near zero (or less) with the master at zero is gererally a good indication that the mix is right where it should be too.
Hope that helps.
Wayne

Am I off base? Funny, now I have slowly brought up faders in Sonar and never noticed any change in my master voloum. Maybe I just did not see

[Robert D]

Originally Posted by jmorris

Yes. I does not work as a cumulative. In other words if you have 3 tracks at 5 db, they don't total 15 db. Or, if I have 5 sticks of wood 2 feet tall each,they are all still 2 feet tall not 10 feet tall.

Hey,
If your sticks are audio tracks, then they're neither 10 feet nor 2 feet tall when put together. And if they're made up of different signals that are complex in the freq, time, and amplitude domains (read music) then forget the math. All you need to know is that they will add in some complex manor, and that you'll have to keep an eye on the peak levels on the buss as they sum, and attenuate channel levels accordingly so as to not overdrive the buss. You'll want to treat obtrusive peaks on the individual tracks, not save it for the main buss, as the latter affects the entire program instead of just the problem. Those treatments can be by compression/limiting, by editing, or some combination.

[mud]

Might as well put in my thoughts also lolz....have u worked much on your eq? reason i ask is a lot of the time instruments take up ranges that it doesn't need to and these can just add to the problems of getting your mix nailed without the added problems of unwanted frequencies occupying space on your tracks. There's a few guides on here with regards to eq ranges n such, maybe you should have alook through these...remember though, cutting is much better than boosting on the eq side so take ur time and trust your ears....take regular timeouts to make sure your in the right frame to eq n mixdown also. A good days break inbetween mixing and finally mastering your tracks will make a world of difference.

[jmorris]

Originally Posted by Robert D

Hey,
If your sticks are audio tracks, then they're neither 10 feet nor 2 feet tall when put together. And if they're made up of different signals that are complex in the freq, time, and amplitude domains (read music) then forget the math. All you need to know is that they will add in some complex manor, and that you'll have to keep an eye on the peak levels on the buss as they sum, and attenuate channel levels accordingly so as to not overdrive the buss. You'll want to treat obtrusive peaks on the individual tracks, not save it for the main buss, as the latter affects the entire program instead of just the problem. Those treatments can be by compression/limiting, by editing, or some combination.

I can buy that if I have one track at -15db, then add a second track at -20bd, my master bus may be a tad more than -15db but not the cumulative of the two. I have had 40 tracks running at a time and when I have added or removed some I have not ever noticed any real change with the bus master levels( unless I just plain never paid attention). Now, I'm not doubting you but what is the "science" behind this?