Final mix is weak?

[JasonBird]

Hi there, I'm having a problem with recording that i hope someone can help me with. I made a recording with cakewalk pro audio 9, and in the final mixdown, i have the balance of the track the way we want it, and i set the main outut levels so they they are hitting +3 to +6 db peaks in the song with no clipping. When i mix it down, I'm mixing it to a 128 bit MP3 file . Then for the cd, it's converted back to a wav file. the problem is when i play the cd on other player, the signal seems weak, ie, i have to turn the amp halfway up to get a decent sound level. anyone know what i may be doing wrong? I', afraid to turn up the levels any further so i risk the signal clipping. It's bugging me to all heck, i'd like to have a better signal . any ideas? thanks in advance, Jason

[James Argo]

Jason, this case you need to "normalize" your mixed audio data before being burnt. It'll make your data is loud enough without reaching the clip. Some burning apps like NERO lets you to normalize the wave before you burn to CD audio. Or it can be done in wave editor like CoolEditPro, SoundForge, etc you BTW, why would you mix the data straight to MP3 ? better mix it to wav, burn to CD in real CD quality, encode to Mp3 latter. You are warned about audio quality loss issue aren't you ?

[Sigma9]

Originally posted by James Argo
BTW, why would you mix the data straight to MP3 ? better mix it to wav, burn to CD in real CD quality, encode to Mp3 latter. You are warned about audio quality loss issue aren't you ?

Oh man did I learn this one the hard way. Totally made my songs thin as hell, couldnt understand why, but when I burned a cd straight from the 2480 it sounded totally PHAT! I had thought that it would be nice to MP3 my songs dumping them from the 2480 to my comp, then burning a cd, but things didnt work out well recording them straight to mp3.

[shackrock]

whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa! ha

mixing down your full song (which are already in wavs) to an MP3, THEN burning to CD = TERRIBLE!!!
That is like cutting A TON OF GOOD SOUNDS out of your WAV!

DEFINATELY mixdown in cakewalk TO A WAV (16 bit, 44.1khz). THEN - BURN FROM THE WAV.

CD's can only burn frmo wav's... 16 bit 44.1khz wav's to be exact. and any program you use will automatically convert the file if it is anything else (or just not burn it!).


so PLEASE, DONT USE MP3'S TO BURN YOUR CD's!!!! (unless ofcourse its from kazza, and you have no other option!! haha).


i also learned this the hard way. 2 years ago burnt everything i recorded from mp3's (they sounded like crap anyway though..lol).

[Uladine]

Also remember that unless your mix was mastered by a pro, it will never hit as hard as pro CDs.

[participant]

Originally posted by JasonBird
Hi there, I'm having a problem with recording that i hope someone can help me with. I made a recording with cakewalk pro audio 9, and in the final mixdown, i have the balance of the track the way we want it, and i set the main outut levels so they they are hitting +3 to +6 db peaks in the song with no clipping. When i mix it down, I'm mixing it to a 128 bit MP3 file . Then for the cd, it's converted back to a wav file. the problem is when i play the cd on other player, the signal seems weak, ie, i have to turn the amp halfway up to get a decent sound level. anyone know what i may be doing wrong? I', afraid to turn up the levels any further so i risk the signal clipping. It's bugging me to all heck, i'd like to have a better signal . any ideas? thanks in advance, Jason

What audio card are you using? How is the stereo output configured? If you're mixing down thru the soundcard's outs, it's likely they're configured for -10dbV output... which would take the final master buss output down 10db.

If this is not the case, and you're mixing down in Cakewalk thru some kind of "export" function, the problem probably lies elsewhere... as in the difference between "actual volume" and "apparent volume".

Actual volume is the amplitude of the sound wave... if you want to visualize that, it's the "up & down" on the volume meter.

Apparent volume deals with how much of the sound spectrum you're hearing... the more of the spectrum you hear, the fuller and "louder" your mix will sound. This is "side to side", in relation to volume.

You get more actual volume by adjusting the volume faders (easy enough). You get more apparent volume by mixing tracks that take up all different parts of the sound spectrum to an equally high level. That's much trickier. If you're having problems getting two tracks to sit together because they take up the same part of the spectrum, you'll need EQ to cut one/both in that part to make it so they don't overlap.

If all your tracks sit together well, all at the same level... and the mix is STILL thin... you may need to track more instruments... specifically ones that sit in the holes left in the sound spectrum in your current mix.

--

Then again, if ALL you want is just a bit more level... find out which tracks are clipping, and turn 'em down in the mix! Or, put some compression on 'em and try mixing everything louder, again. If two parts sound like they're "sticking together" too much (say, guitar & bass) cut the frequencies on one/both that are fighting, and see if that doesn't stop the clipping.

HTH, somehow


Chad

[James Argo]

BTW, what plugins do you have ? Waves ?

[littledog]

Some of these answers are pretty funny ("...if you want your song to be louder, record more instruments" "...only a mastering engineer can make your song as loud as a commercial CD")

The subjective loudness of a song has nothing to do with where the peaks are, and everything to do with how loud the average level of the material is.

Let's take an example:

You have a song with an occasional really loud transient (maybe a snare) that peaks at -1dB (using a full scale VU meter where 0 is the max). But almost all the rest of song is hovering around (-16)bB.

Now, if you normalize, guess what? You only gain 1dB overall. Now the transient will be at 0, and the average program will be at (-15). Big deal - you've gained almost an imperceptible amount of volume.

The trick is to squash just the peak transients without affecting the rest of the song, if possible. You could do it by going in and drawing down the waveforms of the transients, but the easiest way is just use a limiter. By clamping down on just the transients, you can make them 5dB softer, 10dB softer, or however much you dare before it starts to sound like shit.

The result? Now you have 5dB (or 10 dB or whatever) of brand new headroom, which means you can raise the WHOLE volume of the song by that amount, making your song every bit as slamming (or at least as LOUD) as anything on the radio. In our example, if you used a limiter to create 6 dB of headroom, now the average program material will be hovering around (-10dB) instead of (-16dB), which will sound subjectively about twice as loud!

Will it sound as good as if it was professionally mastered? Of course not! But it can certainly sound as loud!

And you won't have to go back and record more instruments. (heh heh )

[kgbjamin]

That was the best response that I've seen to that FAQ in a long time. Bravo Littledog! That's what this website's all about.

[bpoco]

I agree wholeheartedly with "Littledog". This is EXACTLY what you need to do to increase the volume of your audio files on CD's. Check out the article this month on www.prorec.com by Rip Rowan entitled "Over the Limit". It addresses this very subject.

[TexRoadkill]

Littledog is full of shit. Just turn it up to 11!!!

[Uladine]

You guys make it sound so easy.

Lucky for me I got a brand new plugin where all I have to do is tell it how loud I want my mix.

I just set it to "Kinda Loud", "Loud", "Really Loud", or "Who cares about digital zero, anyway?" and it does all the work for me.

It's called the "SYM-LAPOS Pro". (Squash Your Mix Like A Pile Of Shit Pro).

By SYM Soft, Inc.

[Track Rat]

Originally posted by Uladine
It's called the "SYM-LAPOS Pro". (Squash Your Mix Like A Pile Of Shit Pro).

By SYM Soft, Inc.

HA! That's a good one.

[participant]

Originally posted by littledog
Some of these answers are pretty funny ("...if you want your song to be louder, record more instruments" "...only a mastering engineer can make your song as loud as a commercial CD")

The subjective loudness of a song has nothing to do with where the peaks are, and everything to do with how loud the average level of the material is.

I don't get it. I thought that's what I explained... actual volume (peak) vs. apparent volume (RMS).

I agree "only a mastering engineer can make your song as loud as a commercial CD" is a riot, but why LD? Why pick on my "record more instruments"?

snipped comments about peak limiting

Well... that's exactly right... but what's wrong with compressing instruments that have the extra loud transients in the first place? Did my message not say that? Then, you can raise the overall volume of the other tracks... just like you said. Nothing in your post is different from what I was getting at.

And you won't have to go back and record more instruments. (heh heh )

I see

[camn]

what you really need here is a multiband compressor. Indeedy. Do you have one of those?

xoox

[littledog]

Participant, nothing personal... I guess I'm just a dumbass. I still can't see what recording more instruments has to do with perceived loudness. If an intentionally soft song was too loud compared to the kick-ass ones, would you lower the levels, or would you tell the band to rerecord it using less instruments?

This is a mixing/mastering issue. Not an orchestration one. If the levels of a Jethro Tull mix were too low, the mastering engineer would use a limiter to bring it up. Not tell Ian Anderson to go back and rerecord it, this time replacing the flute with a trombone. (Hey, trombones are louder, right?) If he did, he'd probably end up with a flute shoved up his ass, and rightfully so.

But it is a hilarious scenario to imagine...

And camn, a multiband compressor wouldn't be my first instinct at all, given the way the problem was described. (He doesn't say, e.g., I've got a great mix except the flute is too loud...) The Waves L2 or L1+ is the perfect tool for generic "loudening".

[participant]

Originally posted by littledog
Participant, nothing personal... I guess I'm just a dumbass. I still can't see what recording more instruments has to do with perceived loudness. If an intentionally soft song was too loud compared to the kick-ass ones, would you lower the levels, or would you tell the band to rerecord it using less instruments?

This is a mixing/mastering issue. Not an orchestration one. If the levels of a Jethro Tull mix were too low, the mastering engineer would use a limiter to bring it up. Not tell Ian Anderson to go back and rerecord it, this time replacing the flute with a trombone. (Hey, trombones are louder, right?) If he did, he'd probably end up with a flute shoved up his ass, and rightfully so.

But it is a hilarious scenario to imagine...

I guess you're right about that. But I was trying to answer the question in a more round-about way, in case it wasn't just about the mixdown being "louder". Maybe by "halfway decent sound level", the O.P. meant that it was just a thin mix... if that was so, a fuller orchestration could do the trick... or is that wrong?

Just trying to cover some more bases... and rest assured... out of the two of us, I'm the favorite for "dumbass"


Chad

[HangDawg]

Then how bout Ozone. Got yer multi-band whatchamahiggy and yer crankerupper all in one.

[medium_grade]

Ozone is definitely the way to go. You have a multi-band compressor/limiter/expander/gate to play with the dynamics as well as a limiter ("brickwall" or soft) to increase overall loudness. In addition, you get lots of other features for a top-notch master (excitation, stereo imaging, EQ and a reverb unit). The latest version has some additional cool features that I need to upgrade to.

Go! Now!
http://www.izotope.com