getting volume to commercial cd levels?

[rockabilly1955]

how is the best way to get your songs to cd quality volume without it being poor quality?? I use Magix Music Studio to mix and master individual wav files that i record to a fostex mr8. Any advice will help regarding volume?? thanks guys

[jmxdrummer]

I dont know much about Magix Music Studio, but this is what I do know about get ones songs up to cd quality. I use Cakewalk Sonar to track and mix my song. I export it as a stereo wav, which then I use T-racks to master the song. After that I use Wavelab to finish up the song. Even after all that I got my songs to sound louder without clipping, but it still not fully up to pro sound levels. Mastering is what I think is what you are seeking.

[iwantmypie]

compress the snot out of it then use a limiter to raise it up to mindnumbing volumes. make sure the wave file looks like a block and also make sure there is a lot of RED. Distortion is sweet!! I heard if you put it in a deep fryer like at fast food restaurants that it will really make it sound commercial



all kidding aside if you are just working on some home project, any compressor and limiter will be fine. don't kill it, don't clip it. take it easy. if it's still not loud enough when you burn it a cd or whatever, just turn up the volume. it doesn't hurt to have to actually be able to turn up you cd player volume past 10 which you don't need to do with commercial albums. whatever whatever whatever. i don't think i even know what i'm talking about anyway.

[Ironklad Audio]

L2

or L3

[Massive Master]

And of course, start with a commercial quality mix.

That's something most people seem to forget about - You can't just take any run-of-the-mill "okay" sounding mix and expect it to handle the "abuse" that a really great mix will handle - even with professional mastering.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Massive Master

And of course, start with a commercial quality mix.

That's something most people seem to forget about - You can't just take any run-of-the-mill "okay" sounding mix and expect it to handle the "abuse" that a really great mix will handle - even with professional mastering.

Yep, this is a very important point IMHO. In fact I'd like to take it even a bit further, if you don't mind, John.

Something I have just come to realize over the last year or so is that there's a whole lot of folks out there that actually try to use the mastering stage to do much of their "mixing", even if they don't realize that's what their doing. I think this is one of the roots of the - as John so colorfully calles it - "maul the band compression" syndrome in self-mastering.

Almost everybody is familiar with the general idea that one should avoid the "fix in the mix" syndrome when possible. In other words, while it's fine to use heavy processing at will during mixing to create special sounds, don't depend on heavy processing during mixing to fix what's wrong with the tracking. try to get the tracking right in the first place and your mix will come together much better.

The same idea applies to mixing and mastering. Don't depend upon mastering to fix the mix itself. Don't just slap together a mix and then essentially try to re-mix it in mastering. Get the mix right to begin wth, and then let the mastering stage concentrate on the detailing and polishing of the mix, not the re-imagining of it.

G.

[yvesa]

Here's an article I found useful in understanding why I was having troubles making things sound pro...

http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/professionalcds.htm

It kind of renumerates what was said.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by yvesa

Here's an article I found useful in understanding why I was having troubles making things sound pro...

http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/professionalcds.htm

It kind of renumerates what was said.

That is an en excellent article that gets right to the point:

Originally Posted by From that article

Mastering is not remixing, nor is it a fix it stage designed to correct what went wrong during tracking or mixing.

Exactly.

G.

[Keiffer]

I think you're asking a very basic question on how to raise the level in a quality manner. this is not related at all to creating a quality mix. it's about transparent level raising.

here's a method I use to raise the level which I find can deliver excellent sonic results. this is only a guide.

On the stereo buss, I stack up to four compressors in series each doing part of the job. the goal is to have each compressor basically act as a leveller carrying part of the load and to allow the limiter to do very little. if I want 8 db of level increase before the final limiter, then each compressor is adjusted for ~2db of avg gain reduction and two 2b of gain, there abouts. I may set each compressor's ratio, threshold and attach/release slighlty differently but I use the ratio and threshold to get the desired db reduction. I keep the ratio as low as possible, around 1.5:1 to 2:1. the attack/release will control colouring. it just depends on the material. I start with slow attacks and long releases and adjust. again depending on the material. I also try to keep the peak and avg gain reduction somewhat close per compressor. this mainly depends on the attack. avoid pumping.

next is the limiter. I try to use this only to keep tops from clipping and normally I try to keep it from doing very much. most of the work is done in the compressors. again, avoid pumping. if the limiter is really working, start over.

I hoped this helps some.

kp-

[Farview]

Originally Posted by Keiffer

..... this is not related at all to creating a quality mix and you probably don't need a lecture........
...... it just depends on the material..... .......this mainly depends on the attack.

It all depends on the mix. That is what the "lecture" was about. If the transients in his mix are consistantly 20db higher than the bulk of the signal, no matter how many compressors you chain together, you will ruin it.

It's not a lecture, it's a point of fact. If it isn't mixed a certain way, you won't be able to get it that loud without destroying it.

[Keiffer]

I said it depends on the material...

I also removed the lecture part... please read what I posted...

[Keiffer]

Originally Posted by Farview

you will ruin it.

maybe you need to learn how to use compressors...

peak transients really carry very little energy comparatively. this can be used to one's advantage.

if you want to judge this technique on one example, go ahead.

[Massive Master]

Seeing as Farview is one of few engineers that consistently turns in projects that need VERY little processing during the mastering phase, I'd submit this:

Not only does he have an incredibly good handle on compression, but he sends in projects that *don't need* three or four compressors in a row to get them up to "commercial" levels.

It's not that the multi-compressor chain won't work - It's just that it's still making up for something that didn't go well during mixing.

[Farview]

Originally Posted by Keiffer

maybe you need to learn how to use compressors...

peak transients really carry very little energy comparatively. this can be used to one's advantage.

if you want to judge this technique on one example, go ahead.

Go ahead and try to get a classical guitar solo to maintain -9dbfs rms and still sound like a solo classical guitar.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Keiffer

if I want 8 db of level increase before the final limiter

I'm curious as to where you get that number from. I understand that you probably pulled that number out of a hat just as an example, that you may not always necessarily "want" 8dB. What I'm wondering is where or why you come up with any predetermined number at all?

G.

[Keiffer]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

I'm curious as to where you get that number from. I understand that you probably pulled that number out of a hat just as an example, that you may not always necessarily "want" 8dB. What I'm wondering is where or why you come up with any predetermined number at all?

G.

please read again... I said "if I want..." it was an example. that requires some specificity.

maybe instead of attacking my method, maybe help rockabilly1955 to raise his level with your experience. sorry if I missed it, but I read very little help before my post that got to the real question. How to.

I was totally clear that "It depends on the material." Enough said.

[Keiffer]

Originally Posted by Farview

Go ahead and try to get a classical guitar solo to maintain -9dbfs rms and still sound like a solo classical guitar.

then rockabilly1955's free not to use this technique if it doesn't suit the material. geeeezzzz

[Keiffer]

Originally Posted by Massive Master

It's not that the multi-compressor chain won't work - It's just that it's still making up for something that didn't go well during mixing.

oh please... it is not... how's raising the level in the final product as you say "making up" for mixing. if that's the case then a lot of MEs produce deficient mixes.

in this case... if half the time was devoted to talking specific technique. that was the question. this is home recording. technique specifics are important.

kp-

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Keiffer

please read again... I said "if I want..." it was an example. that requires some specificity.

maybe instead of attacking my method, maybe help rockabilly1955 to raise his level with your experience.

Geez, Keif, relax and take a slow breath in the nose and out the mouth. I was asking a question, not attacking you. And I also said that I understood that the number you cited was just an example, that you may not always necessarily want that amount. It is indeed content dependant, you're right.

Allow me to rephrase my question: how do you determine a numeric value for the number of dBs of compression that a mix needs?

If you have a formula, or if not technically a formula, a describable method for calculating that, that would indeed be very helpful in answering the OP's question. In fact, after reading your very descriptive recipe, it actually begs the question of "OK, but how does one know they want 8dB (or whatever, based upon content) of compression, and not 4dB or 6dB or 10dB?"

It's a reasonable, useful, and relevant question, not an attack.

G.

[Keiffer]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Allow me to rephrase my question: how do you determine a numeric value for the number of dBs of compression that a mix needs?

Please accept my apology...

Depending on the material I generally am trying to maximize within reason and probably (rule of thumb) somewhere around K-14 to K-12 FS. Mixes have to end up somewhere and that's where I work to.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Keiffer

K-14 to K-12 FS. Mixes have to end up somewhere and that's where I work to.

Regardless of content and regardless of mix quality?

Just playing devil's advocate here, but for example; if you have wall of sound metal mix that is coming out of the two mix at -14, does that mean you leave it alone or maybe squeeze another 2dB out of it? Or if you get one that cones out of the mix at -11 that you strap an expander to it?

Or if you have an acoustic mix that comes in at -19, do you automatically squeeze 5 to 7 dB out of it?

And finally, do you target those levels pre or post spectral sweetening?

Again, this is not meant as an attack if even the questions seem somewhat pointed. I'm just trying to understand the technique is all.

Because frankly, the way I'm used to doing it, setting target numbers first is kind of switching around cause and effect. I'm used to letting the content dictate the process, the numbers will fall where they may. I can easily create - and often do - a self-mastered CD where the individual RMS levels for each track can vary anywhere between -17dBRMS and -12dBRMS - with those numbers simply being the result of responding to the content and not predetermined values - and still provide a consistant listening experience for the listener, exactly because of the differences in content. And I just don't understand how to acheive that same consistant quality product by targeting a more-or-less arbitrary mastering level.

Perhaps we deal with different styles of artist/client. Maybe my regulars produce more variation in content style and arrangement with a wider mix between sparse ballads and dense anthems. Or maybe you just have a trick up your sleeve that I have not got a handle on yet. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

EDIT: What I suspect, but am honestly not going to say for sure just yet, is that a big part of the answer may be because there is so much compression already applied to the mix. Which would indeed take us back to the whole question of mix quality and it's effect on mastering.

G.

[Keiffer]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Regardless of content and regardless of mix quality?

Just playing devil's advicate here, but for example; if you have wall of sound metal mix that is coming out of the two mix at -14, does that mean you leave it alone or maybe squeeze another 2dB out of it? Or if you get one that cones out of the mix at -11 that you strap an expander to it?

Or if you have an acoustic mix that comes in at -19, do you automatically squeeze 5 to 7 dB out of it?

it depends...

playing devil's advocate... do you arbitrarily set levels with no game plan? do you not have a preferred set of tools that you generally consider your starting point?

And finally, do you target those levels pre or post spectral sweetening?

I've done both and neither. but never after the final limiter.

Again, this is not meant as an attack if even the questions seem somewhat pointed. I'm just trying to understand the technique is all.

Because frankly, the way I'm used to doing it, setting target numbers first is kind of switching around cause and effect. I'm used to letting the content dictate the process, the numbers will fall where they may. I can easily create - and often do - a self-mastered CD where the individual RMS levels for each track can vary anywhere between -17dBRMS and -12dBRMS - with those numbers simply being the result of responding to the content and not predetermined values - and still provide a consistant listening experience for the listener, exactly because of the differences in content. And I just don't understand how to acheive that same consistant quality product by targeting a more-or-less arbitrary mastering level.

Perhaps we deal with different styles of artist/client. Maybe my regulars produce more variation in content style and arrangement with a wider mix between sparse ballads and dense anthems. or maybe you just have a trick up your sleeve that I have not got a handle on yet. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

G.

this can be debated ad nauseam. that's good info though. that was my goal... to provide info and insight. thanks.

rockabilly1955, I hope my initial post helped.

kp-

[kylen]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

... I can easily create - and often do - a self-mastered CD where the individual RMS levels for each track can vary anywhere between -17dBRMS and -12dBRMS - with those numbers simply being the result of responding to the content and not predetermined values - and still provide a consistant listening experience for the listener, exactly because of the differences in content.
G.

Yes - that's kinda what I have in mind when I might mention K-12 somewhere...meaning K-12ish at the loudest moderately dense rock track. I don't really like the sound when it gets louder in general but the hottest track might go into the 11's - I think I can tell when it goes into the 10's - on my equipment anyway (local remastering guy here!). On Bob Ludwigs equipment it can go down to K-6 and sound acceptable for a while - don't know how he does that one! I think equipment plays a fair percentage in the equation in this case.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Keiffer

playing devil's advocate... do you arbitrarily set levels with no game plan? do you not have a preferred set of tools that you generally consider your starting point?

Keep in mind that I am not an ME, nor do I play one on the Net. I'm just a mixing engineer who often is called upon to self-master the mixes he does. But here's how I do it, more or less:

If I'm doing a single song, I do not "set" my levels anywhere. I edit the dynamics and dial the knobs by ear, taking the song up until the mix begins to fall apart, and then back off of that just a taste, normalling my peaks peaking no higher than -0.1dBFS. Limiting reduction on the mix is typically 2dB or less, not by design but by the way it usually just works out.

If I am doing a compliation of songs for EP or CD destination, then I'll sample all the songs, and perform the above procedure on the quietest (RMS), least dense of the songs first. I then use that as an aural baseline for the rest of the disc, mastering the other cuts to aurally fit with the quiet one. Some of the stronger anthems might get a little extra juice anyway, but it depends upon the layout of the songs and how I set up the rhythm of the CD as a whole.

I usually watch or check the numbers out of informational curiosity and as a litmus test to make sure I'm not making any major errors in judgement - if a song winds up 3dBRMS different than it's predecessor but they are of similar content and arrangement, I might double-check a few things just to make sure I'm not fatiguing or forgot to push a button somehwere. But I never "master by numbers", in that I never decide beforehand, "OK, this one needs to be at -14", and I accept that 3dB difference if I confirm that I have not made a mistake, it just winds up sounding best that way, and certianly don't expect or want them to all come out the same.

Different songs with different natural sonic densities need to have different final RMS levels if you want them to sound like they are meant to go together on a playlist.

It's all up to the content and the mix.

G.

[Massive Master]

Originally Posted by Keiffer

oh please... it is not... how's raising the level in the final product as you say "making up" for mixing. if that's the case then a lot of MEs produce deficient mixes.

in this case... if half the time was devoted to talking specific technique. that was the question. this is home recording. technique specifics are important.

kp-

I'm saying that if you need to chain four dynamics controllers in a chain to get to "commercial levels" than the mix didn't want to be there in the first place.

It's a piece o' cake to get a good mix to "commercial levels" simply by throwing a ("a'" as in "one") decent limiter across the bow and tweaking the A&R.

Okay, that's somewhat of a generalization, but it rarely takes much more than that. A mix that has proper dynamics control *by the talent* then by the mixing engineer, usually doesn't need extraordinary measures taken to get to a reasonably "commercial" level at the mastering stage.

And believe me - I understand this is home recording. That's why I try to get to techniques that produce good recordings. Not loud recordings.

As much as I hate the volume trend, most good recordings have no problem being loud recordings. Unfortunately, half the time (or more) the people who are trying to "make their recordings loud" don't even understand how to *track* their recordings properly. I'd rather get them to concentrate on that. Without the basics, everything else is putting the cart before the horse.