How Can I Get Commercially Loud Mixes?

LogicDeLuxe said:
Preventing the signal to go beyond the available headroom, apparently. This is usually done in combination with a limiter, and was sensible in times when dynamic ranges were far more limited than those available on a CD. And it still is on FM radio. Driving the overall signal closer to the limit allows the station for more listeners, since the noise floor increases with distance. Unfortunately, like with many CD's, they are overdoing it to the point of unlistenable sound. And doing this with digital radio stations is also pointless, but many do it nevertheless.
If you can't even hear the compression, then it is very well adjusted.
Click to expand...

yea i understand, but you can HEAR the compressor from keeping your music from clipping or you can hear it lower the loud parts and bringing up the low parts....thats my point....if you do something and it doesn't make a difference there's no point in using it...when compression is overdone thats when you get compression artifacts...
 
Rokket said:
... ooops, forgot that word... ARTIFACTS...

That's what I was trying to convey.


And I haven't really heard anyone who was trying to use it as an effect. In my limited experience and knowledge, I couldn't even tell someone how to use it as an effect.
Click to expand...

slight pumping on drum bus might be cool to give the drums a more live feel, or even squashing to point that brings up the noise floor might give you a cool lo fi sound...don't limit yourself...its like cooking you can experiment it may work it may not but you won't know till you try
 
getting back to loudness, I have always been adding a smile EQ curve to my mix in the belief this was sounding better but have just found out alot of mixes these days are made with strong mids to make it seem even louder, this together with the tip about using very short release times to reduce pumping mean I can now get my mix to compete in loudness, but I think I will still leave some dynamic range as I hate the idea which I keep hearing that people have to turn your music off after a while because of fatigue. Thanks again
 
definitely stay away from the smiley face

most of what we hear is in the midrange...between 1-5k, and that's the region you'll need to master(no pun intended) if you want mixes that really appeal to people's ears. taming/controlling the low end is also important, but too many people kind of skip over what's going on with the mids...

also, if i remember correctly, you said that you're doing techno/dance sort of stuff....in that case, i would say dynamics be damned, do what ever the hell you need to make it sound like you want it to sound. dynamics, IMO, are more or less useless in this sort of music. drunk sluts in the club don't give a shit if you squashed the life out of your mix...as long as the bass keeps thumping, and they have something to shake their ass to, it's all good in the hood.
 
Teacher said:
slight pumping on drum bus might be cool to give the drums a more live feel, or even squashing to point that brings up the noise floor might give you a cool lo fi sound...don't limit yourself...its like cooking you can experiment it may work it may not but you won't know till you try
Click to expand...
I had a compression thread started here where I was saying I was adding it to every track out of habit. Sometimes I would be so disgusted with the results that I would delete the entire session and start over. That's pretty much all I can do right now as it is. I am deployed in the Pacific and won't be home until the end of July. Until then, I am practicing my mixing. The problem is that lately, since I only have a limited amount of material, I have reached a plateau...
 
benage said:
getting back to loudness, I have always been adding a smile EQ curve to my mix in the belief this was sounding better
Click to expand...
Your goal should be a natural sound when played back linear. If the listener likes a "smile EQ curve", he would apply it on his stereo. Thus there is no need to do this during mastering. You're even limiting yourself by increasing the low frequencies.
Sure, if your mix is rather mid-intensive to begin with, applying such EQ'ing to fix that is a different thing.
Ironklad Audio said:
you said that you're doing techno/dance sort of stuff....in that case, i would say dynamics be damned, do what ever the hell you need to make it sound like you want it to sound. dynamics, IMO, are more or less useless in this sort of music.
Click to expand...
I may differ on that. I mastered the Madtracker Chainsongs and kept a lot dynamics which makes a difference to my ears. There is a lot of dance stuff in there along with various other styles. The rap parts were played in a club and it was well accepted. There certainly were no complains about too quite a recording or about too much dynamics.
If you want to listen to those. It's free to leech and distributed with permission: http://logicdeluxe.madtracker.net/M...ainsongs_mastered_[high_quality_FLAC].torrent
 
Ummm... I think we are missing the point. People saying you have to squash the song are incorrect. It has a lot to do with EQing the mid highs properly, removing mud, and compressing EACH instrument a little so that you get that extra umph... A good example to listen to is Dr. Dre. He has the CLEANEST rap mixes available. Period. It doesn't matter if you like or hate his music. I always use his music as a reference, never coming close, but what is usually done at the mastering level is that they will take your mix, look what is missing, and fill it in in terms of the shape of the mix. if you are missing too much of something, your mix will never sound whole/loud without losing a shitload of dynamics[and usually will cause pumping cause that means that you usually will have too much bass or treble].
 
On the flip side of all that though, sometimes hammering a mix sounds cool.

Daft Punk and Justice rely pretty heavily on the kick making the mix pump. It sounds awesome when everything sort of quietens down for the kick beats.

Makes the whole thing move in a different way.

I'm just in a good mood because I saw Justice last night and it was incredible:)
 
You know, my new favorite tool to fix the problem of my mixes being quieter is iTunes. If you go into the "Get Info" menu of the song (or select a whole album), you can just adjust the volume of that track so that when it's played back on iTunes or your iPod, the volume is automagically turned up so everything is the same loudness, but I don't have to sacrifice a good, dynamic mix. Most mp3 players have a similar feature, and if you're at a party, it'd make just as much sense to use an mp3 player instead of a CD.
 
gdavi1 said:
i hate when i hear the words "remastered" when talking about old albums.

sorry for my little rant
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you.


I had a cassette of Guns-n-Roses' 'Appetite For Destruction'. Of course, it got eaten in a tape deck that I neglected long enough for the heads and capstans to get filthy.

I bought a re-release on CD a couple years ago. All of the songs sounded like shit. Zero bass response, waaay too trebly, and I swear the vocals were distorted when Axl screamed. I was thoroughly disappointed.

Digitally remastered my ass. Purposely destoyed is more like it.
 
By definition, any recording that came out before approximately 1982 HAS TO be digitally remastered for CD, because the original mastering was for vinyl only; there were no CDs :).

But to paraphrase what I said earlier in the thread, it's not digital remastering's fault that not all MEs do a great job every time. It's also important to note that not al remastering jobs have the same source copies or source copy quality to work with. There are some remastering jobs that absolutely suck, and others that are great. Usually the differences can be more subtle, but the difference in results can be striking.

I find this is most evident on compilation CDs and greatest hits collections, where one might find two, three or four different remastering jobs on as many discs done to the same song. Two of my favorite illustrative examples that I like to show people from my personal collection:

I have three versions of the "Ballad of Peter Pumkinhead" by XTC; the origianal CD release, a "best of" XTC compilation CD, and a compilation CD of selected hits from the 80s. All three are different, all three sound fine, but the compilation CD has a punch to it that not even the original has that just sounds brilliant. The opening guitar riff just cuts throuh the air like a bolt of lightning, and the initial drum riff has a similar punch to it. That punch is just not quite there in the other two pressings.

The second, more obscure one (except to fans of alternative album radio ;)) is "Belly of the Whale" by Burning Sensation. This was on a vinyl-only release, and to my knowledge the album has never been re-released on CD - not that I have found before, anyway (it's been a few years since I checked.) It does, however show up on at least two compilation CDs, one an album rock compilation and another a reggae rock compilation. The reggae rock version is amazing in that - purposely or accidentally, I don't know - if you have your speakers set up for proper stereo imaging, much of the mix takes on a 3D image. For example, the main rhythm guitar actually seems to be emanating from a point in front of the speaker plane. Pop the other CD in and the image collapses to a flat left/right soundstage.

I never had a chance to hear the original vinyl version on anything but radio (which doesn't count) so I don't know whether that imaging was in the original master, or whether it's a purposeful or accidental effect on that one remaster's part. but the result is really nice, and noticably different from the other one.

G.
 
thebigcheese said:
You know, my new favorite tool to fix the problem of my mixes being quieter is iTunes. If you go into the "Get Info" menu of the song (or select a whole album), you can just adjust the volume of that track so that when it's played back on iTunes or your iPod, the volume is automagically turned up so everything is the same loudness, but I don't have to sacrifice a good, dynamic mix. Most mp3 players have a similar feature, and if you're at a party, it'd make just as much sense to use an mp3 player instead of a CD.
Click to expand...

i'm pretty positive that properly squashing a song with compressors and limiters do a much better job then itunes...
 
Teacher said:
i'm pretty positive that properly squashing a song with compressors and limiters do a much better job then itunes...
Click to expand...
Well, iTunes just literally raises the volume, as far as I am aware. It doesn't add a compressor or anything. It just makes it so that you don't have to go turn up the volume every time the song comes on. Of course, I could be wrong and it could just be tearing it up, but to my ears, it sounds like it's just like turning the volume up. So in that case, not using the limiters and then just raising the volume in iTunes (it only effects the song as listened to in iTunes or your iPod) would sound better, I think.
 
thebigcheese said:
Well, iTunes just literally raises the volume, as far as I am aware. It doesn't add a compressor or anything. It just makes it so that you don't have to go turn up the volume every time the song comes on. Of course, I could be wrong and it could just be tearing it up, but to my ears, it sounds like it's just like turning the volume up. So in that case, not using the limiters and then just raising the volume in iTunes (it only effects the song as listened to in iTunes or your iPod) would sound better, I think.
Click to expand...
Yep, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it does, and what is exactly what the end user should be paying attention to. It's called "being the DJ". In this case instead of having to manually ride the playback volume as the playlist plays, the user can just preset the proper playback volumes for each track so that they all have approximately the same perceived playback volume.

The idea that it's the responsibility of the ME or the original producer/artist to do that is just the ultimate extension of laziness on the part of the end user.

G.
 
thebigcheese said:
Well, iTunes just literally raises the volume, as far as I am aware. It doesn't add a compressor or anything. It just makes it so that you don't have to go turn up the volume every time the song comes on. Of course, I could be wrong and it could just be tearing it up, but to my ears, it sounds like it's just like turning the volume up. So in that case, not using the limiters and then just raising the volume in iTunes (it only effects the song as listened to in iTunes or your iPod) would sound better, I think.
Click to expand...
Also, some more good examples of why not to squash your mix: the album Saturday Night Wrist by Deftones and the song Delirium Trigger by Coheed and whatever. There is actually crackling in parts of the song because they turned it up so much. It's really obnoxious that they can get away with that (probably the stupid producer's fault).
 
thebigcheese said:
Well, iTunes just literally raises the volume, as far as I am aware. It doesn't add a compressor or anything. It just makes it so that you don't have to go turn up the volume every time the song comes on. Of course, I could be wrong and it could just be tearing it up, but to my ears, it sounds like it's just like turning the volume up. So in that case, not using the limiters and then just raising the volume in iTunes (it only effects the song as listened to in iTunes or your iPod) would sound better, I think.
Click to expand...

i'm just saying if it was that easy to make a loud mix i don't think ME's would spend 50K on a custom rack mounted peice....they would just raise the volume with some DAW and call it a day...
 
Teacher said:
i'm just saying if it was that easy to make a loud mix i don't think ME's would spend 50K on a custom rack mounted peice....they would just raise the volume with some DAW and call it a day...
Click to expand...
There's a big difference.

We're basically talking about using iTunes to normalize relative perceived playback volumes (NOT the same thing as peak normalization, BTW). The ME needs far more than that because he has an upper limit to where he can set overall volume; past a certain point and all he's doing is clipping. So what he needs to do is RMS normalization, which requires squashing the dynamics to increase the average volume level of each song. To do this and still have it sound decent requires that expensive gear.

The end user does not have such constraints; all they need to do to adjust relative volume is turn up/down the volume control. The only upper limit they have is when they send their amplifier into clipping. But that's controlled by the master playback volume, they can still adjust the relative volumes for each track to normalize with room to spare. No fancy equipment needed.

And it's also important to remember that with playback volume adjustment, the end user is not actually doing anything to modify the sound of the track itself, they are just adjusting the volume of the playback amp. So if the mix sounds good and is engineered well, it will sound just as good at louder volumes as well. Not the same with the ME; they are actually modifying the mix itself. That requires talent, technique and gear to do well. On the end user's side, a monkey with a volume control could get it right without ruining anything.

G.
 
put a brickwall limiter on your master bus, set it to brickwall at -.01 dbFS, and slam the pre-amp as high as it goes.

you're done!! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top