Mastering Compression killing drums

[Drummerbones]

I've noticed that when rock music, especially, is mastered to meet today's standard of "how-freaking-loud-can-we-possibly-make-this-cd?" that it has a serious impact on the drums in the mix. I recently had to remix a track that I was quite happy with because when the mastering engineer did his thing, and yes I'm to blame because I requested market-competitive levels, the drums just weren't there where I wanted them. I bumped them up a couple of dbs, the song was mastered again, and now I'm happy with the result. I've heard that some engineers actually mix with some pretty significant compression on the buss to ensure that their mixes will hold up under today's mastering approach. How have you all dealt with this issue?

**Disclaimer. I am in no way bashing mastering engineers. Customers like me who are just trying to compete, and record label execs, have forced their hand to push music beyond the brink.**

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

How have you all dealt with this issue?

By understanding that loudness level has nothing to do with competing, and in fact "competing" has nothing to do with music to begin with.

I'm just sayin'.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

Mastering Compression killing drums

No shit

I think we should stop calling this process mastering and start calling it what it is... Perceptual Loudness Maximization... or rather more aptly -- Sickeningly Harmful Irritating Trashing (S.H.I.T.)

Here's my explanation why the process kills the drums the most.

The drums by their nature produce the most prominent transients in most recorded music. When you're trying to S.H.I.T.-ify the recording, in a sence the only way you can do this is by minimizing these transients, or bringing these the level of these transients close to the level of everything else. This then allows you to bring up the level of everything.

However, since you have now lost most of your transients, you have also lost the punch in your drums, since it is the transients that give them that punchy character.

 

[NYMorningstar]

By understanding that loudness level has nothing to do with competing, and in fact "competing" has nothing to do with music to begin with.

I'm just sayin'.

G.

No matter how many times you say it, it won't make it true.

The loudness level has alot to do with competing in today's market. There is a music market and it is competitive. For whatever reason people want it loud whether it's because they're drugged out or maybe they're just trying to impress their girlfriend, whatever. It's a mindset and we're not going to change it.

I know what you're saying but we don't live in an ideal perfect world.

I'm not saying it's right but it is true. Hell, I remember when the Stone's albums first came out and they said it 'had' to be played loud. Rock and roll has traditionally been loud. For one thing it helps when the music sucks.

I see Bob Dylan even came out with a flat top on his new single 'Feel a Change Comin'.

I guess it's not such a bad thing as long as you keep the dynamics in the music.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

No matter how many times you say it, it won't make it true.

I could say the exact same thing about the "competitive theory".

It has been demonstrated time and time and time again over the years (including modern times) that the relative loudness of any given track has zero relation to it's success. It's about the music, not about the RMS.

The Stones were talking about playback volume, not the lack of dynamics.

If you want to listen to something, it's because you like it, not because it's loud, and if you like it you won't give a shit if you have to bump the volume a little to have it be the same loudness as the bilge that surrounds it. And if people like it, the radio station will play it, automating their compression and gain on their end to even it out, and the club DJ will push the slider himself the same way he adjusts the BPM to make it fit in his mix.

And, BTW, if there *is* such a thing as competition (there isn't, any more than there was a competition between Dylan and Lennon*) but let' s play along for a minute, shall we?), the best way to compete against something is not to offer the same thing as the competition but *to offer something better*.

You're right 'Star, it's not a perfect world. But I see no reason to use that as an excuse to make it even less so. ("Why did you shoot that guy in the face?" "Hey, What'dya want...it's not a perfect world, ya know.")

G.

*What "competition" Lennon may have felt was purely creative, and not a competition for listeners; there was plenty of room for both. What we can use these days is more *creative competition*, and creative competition does NOT mean making sure that everything and everybody sound exactly the same.

 

[bkkornaker]

to answer the original question (without going astray and talkin about loudness wars again)....

yes, certain limiters are better than others.....Ive found way too many limiters which just KILLS transistants, some are worse than others...

Sonnox Limiter and Timeworks mastering compressor (actully is a limiter) are the 2 that ive found that somehwat keep your drums intact, while pushing the volume up quite a bit....

 

[NL5]

Ive found way too many limiters which just KILLS transistants

LOL.

Limiters killing transients! Dammit! Someone needs to make a limiter that doesn't kill transients.....

ROTFLMAO.

 

[greyharmonix]

someone save the transients! lol

 

[bkkornaker]

i guess i set myself up for that one......

 

[Drummerbones]

No surprise that I hit the inevitable nerve of the loudness war. Personally, I don't like how loud CD's have become and I know most of you don't either. However, if you want to "play on the next level" you have to bring the same game, which totally sucks, but in my opinion can't be lost in the equation.

Moving on, I don't know what compressor/limiter my ME was using, I didn't ask because I only care about the final product (a laundry list of gear does not impress me) and I've used him in the past on a different genre album and loved it.

All that being said, I asked the question because when I pop in, let's say, Audioslave's last album, Revelations, it is loud as hell; about as loud as any CD I own, and there the drums are thumping away perfectly in the mix. So obviously it can be attained: a loud master that hasn't smashed the drums into an abyss to never be found again.

So I'm wondering how the major labels achieve this. Do they, as I originally said, mix the drums too hot because they know they'll get smashed later...do mixing engineers mix with a compressor on the stereo buss (not for the actual mixdown, but for playback to hear how the mastering will effect the mix)? Or are they simply utilizing better tools, hardware & software than others?

 

[Bristol Posse]

All that being said, I asked the question because when I pop in, let's say, Audioslave's last album, Revelations, it is loud as hell; about as loud as any CD I own, and there the drums are thumping away perfectly in the mix. So obviously it can be attained: a loud master that hasn't smashed the drums into an abyss to never be found again.

So I'm wondering how the major labels achieve this. Do they, as I originally said, mix the drums too hot because they know they'll get smashed later...do mixing engineers mix with a compressor on the stereo buss (not for the actual mixdown, but for playback to hear how the mastering will effect the mix)? Or are they simply utilizing better tools, hardware & software than others?

I think you just got the answer in that sentence "Thumping away perfectly in the mix"
Pro musicians with tons of studio experience, engineers recording them with years of experience in million dollar purpose made facilities come out with a mix that is a close to perfect as it can be. A producer along with the artist have a vision in mind before the first session is even recorded and that is communiated and tweaked during the tracking process, is ever present in the mixing process.
Once it gets to the mastering stage that vision is communicated to the matering engineer.

So a team of professional, experince musicians, engineers and producers working toward a common goal with a clear understanding of the desired result at each stage of the process, in the most ideal locations possible are probably going to get a great result

If something doesn't come out right in the mastering process it probably wasn't quite right in the mix and the EQ and RMS level increase highlighted it. I just had some stuff mastered and found that on a couple of tracks I had to tweak the mixes to fix what the master highlighted to me that was bad in the original mix.

 

[RAMI]

I think you just got the answer in that sentence "Thumping away perfectly in the mix"
Pro musicians with tons of studio experience, engineers recording them with years of experience in million dollar purpose made facilities come out with a mix that is a close to perfect as it can be. A producer along with the artist have a vision in mind before the first session is even recorded and that is communiated and tweaked during the tracking process, is ever present in the mixing process.
Once it gets to the mastering stage that vision is communicated to the matering engineer.

So a team of professional, experince musicians, engineers and producers working toward a common goal with a clear understanding of the desired result at each stage of the process, in the most ideal locations possible are probably going to get a great result

If something doesn't come out right in the mastering process it probably wasn't quite right in the mix and the EQ and RMS level increase highlighted it. I just had some stuff mastered and found that on a couple of tracks I had to tweak the mixes to fix what the master highlighted to me that was bad in the original mix.

Exactly.

The better the source, the less it will fall apart when "limited".

 

[royalt213]

No surprise that I hit the inevitable nerve of the loudness war. Personally, I don't like how loud CD's have become and I know most of you don't either. However, if you want to "play on the next level" you have to bring the same game, which totally sucks, but in my opinion can't be lost in the equation.

Moving on, I don't know what compressor/limiter my ME was using, I didn't ask because I only care about the final product (a laundry list of gear does not impress me) and I've used him in the past on a different genre album and loved it.

All that being said, I asked the question because when I pop in, let's say, Audioslave's last album, Revelations, it is loud as hell; about as loud as any CD I own, and there the drums are thumping away perfectly in the mix. So obviously it can be attained: a loud master that hasn't smashed the drums into an abyss to never be found again.

So I'm wondering how the major labels achieve this. Do they, as I originally said, mix the drums too hot because they know they'll get smashed later...do mixing engineers mix with a compressor on the stereo buss (not for the actual mixdown, but for playback to hear how the mastering will effect the mix)? Or are they simply utilizing better tools, hardware & software than others?

CDs are so 1995. They have this new thing called "vinyl." Check it out!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So I'm wondering how the major labels achieve this. Do they, as I originally said, mix the drums too hot because they know they'll get smashed later...do mixing engineers mix with a compressor on the stereo buss (not for the actual mixdown, but for playback to hear how the mastering will effect the mix)? Or are they simply utilizing better tools, hardware & software than others?

A compressor that costs more than your entire recording setup does indeed help, but more than anything they do it by technique.

You don't just go slamming your mix into a brick wall limiter at 180mph and expect it to sound any good. You bring it up gently, in stages, massaging it as you go along to keep the crappiest artifacts of such crushing in check. You also sometimes mix it up by ruining your mix partially via compression and partially via clipping the signal through your mastering converters. And so forth.

And, BTW, if you think that Audioslave album sounds good, you shoulda heard it *before* it got crushed.

G.

 

[Drummerbones]

Thanks Glen, that's some good input and advice. I'll try to approach the "crappy home mastering just for demos" that I do with your suggestions in mind. For my serious work, perhaps I need to find a different ME. Nope, not going to name names. Don't suppose you could PM me with a few recommendations?

I'm totally jealous if you actually heard that Audioslave album pre-mastering. I've often wanted to hear before and afters of major label productions to hear the difference. Honestly, for being loud as hell like everything else these days, I actually do enjoy that album. It's one of the lesser fatiguing in my collection.

Too bad they broke up; them and Velvet Revolver...I got on this kick of these "new" bands pieced together from other bands the last few years, then they all disbanded...oh well. Thanks again to all for your input.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Don't suppose you could PM me with a few recommendations?

You don't really have to look any further than this board, we have a couple of pro MEs that frequent this forum that do fantastic work, both crushed and un-crushed (depending on what you want...you're the client after all ). But I'll PM you with their names and websites as soon as I'm donet typing this.

I'm totally jealous if you actually heard that Audioslave album pre-mastering.

I can't claim to have actually heard it; I say what I did based upon three things:

- First, that the only way something *CAN* sound good crushed beyond reason is to sound even better un-crushed. With rare, esoteric exceptions, there's no such thing - at least not that I have ever heard myself or heard an ME claim - as something that actually sounded intrinsically better when pushed too far, That's not to say that many albums can't be raised to some degree and sound better, they can. But there's raised, there's pushed, and there's crushed. Once you get well into pushed, or beyond that into crushed, it's going down the back side of the quality hill.

Bristol and Rami are absolutely right; the only way one can push a mix so far and not have it fall apart is to get it right in the performance, tracking and mixing first. And if you get it right in those stages, except for some final stage polishing and other things necessary to help the track fit in the album, pushing it too hard will just make it sound intrinsically worse. Therefore it has to sound better beforehand.

- Second, with an ear that's used to this stuff, it's not that difficult to "hear" with at least some incomplete degree of accuracy what lays underneath the pushing; i.e. one can hear much of the "push" itself. Once you can hear that, you can mentally subtract it and "hear" what it must have sounded like before hand.

- Third, much of #1 and #2 come from both personal experience hearing pre- and post-pushed mixes, and from the almost constant laments of pro MEs that I have known over the years wishing the client did not want the pushing because it almost always makes the mix sound intrinsically worse.

PM on it's way...

G.