Mastering volume

T

thebecomingsuit

New member
Hi,

My band has recorded some tracks using adobe audition. When we try to mixdown and master the tracks they all end up slightly quieter than commercial cds. The procedure we used was to mix all tracks to a wav file then normalize to 0db, is this correct. If we try to increase the volume of the track it starts to peak. Can anyone recommend a good way of mastering tracks in audition.

Thanks
 
Welcome aboard!

This is a loaded and often asked question. Its also the subject of some strong opnions right up to the top-most professionals in the field of mastering. So there are few simple answers to the question you're asking.

But the simple answer I'll give is that you need to learn how to use a compressor. I don't know Audition, but I'm assuming it has a compression plugin. Maybe its has "dynamics" in the name if not compressor.

Basically, a compressor on the stereo mix takes those peaks and turns them down (depending on how you have it set) so you can turn everything up. Viola! Louder tracks without changing the sound TOO much.

Ahem. Notice the phrase "TOO much."

Be gentle. You spent a some time tracking and mixing those tunes. A compressor (or any other effect, really) is a dangerous tool at this point and can quickly cause more harm than good. It takes a while to develop your ear and technique- but there is no better time to start than now.

In practice, I found my early mastering attempts really just highlighted what was wrong with my mixes. I then went back and fixed the mix. Learned a lot that way.

And don't even bother mastering until you have several, if not all, of your tunes finished and mixed. Put them all together in a session so you can A/B them against each other. Then you can bring them all up to the same level more easily- among a great many other things that you can do.

Be brave. Have fun,
Chris
 
In practice, I found my early mastering attempts really just highlighted what was wrong with my mixes. I then went back and fixed the mix. Learned a lot that way.
Click to expand...
That's what happens a LOT. And it brings the point that the vast majority of mixes will never have the same volume potential as the mixes the OP is probably trying to attain.

A monkey with a limiter can make a mix "loud" - Just as loud as any other.

But if the mix can't *handle* that sort of volume, it ain't gonna happen. And if the engineer doesn't have the experience to know how to limit (no pun intended) the damage, it still ain't gonna happen.

Expecting the same potential out of "home brew" recording as a project that's been handled by teams of industry professionals from the very first step up until the very last step just isn't very realistic.

I'm not trying to discourage - I'm just trying to be somewhat realistic...
 
Massive Master said:
Expecting the same potential out of "home brew" recording as a project that's been handled by teams of industry professionals from the very first step up until the very last step just isn't very realistic.

..
Click to expand...

I am very curious about this statement, as I have seen it here quite often. Keep in mind that I am a pro musician with a lot of experience as a session player, but am now getting into the producer side of things and have limited experience there:

What exactly are "teams of industry professionals"?? I have never seen this. I see a producer and perhap an engineer who sets up mics for sessions. When it is sent to a mastering house, I assume that one person (like you) masters it? I had my CD mastered by a guy with very big credits, one guy did it.

I can see how a Mariah Carey or Beyonce CD might have "teams of pros", but for most recordings, I cant see where a "team" of anything is involved. If anything, I think there might be too many cooks in the kitchen if too many people were involved. Correct??
 
DavidK said:
What exactly are "teams of industry professionals"??
Click to expand...

I think Massive is referring to the "team" of people that work on a project from pre-production through post. Some of them never even see each other, but they all work together (in theory) to propel the project in a particular direction.

In this case, we're talking about making sure the final mix will master well and be loud. How each piece is mic'd will have an affect on this- and the theory is that the professionals understand how to achieve the desired affect. How its arranged will have an effect. How its mixed, etc. The "team" of people is sometimes hired for each individual's ability/reputation for achieving a particular sound.

It takes a long time to understand how to do that (i.e. know how each step of the process affects your final product) and most "home brew" projects don't have that kind of expertise involved. It doesn't mean "home brew" is bad- it just means comparing it to Big Dollar$ productions isn't very realistic. They are 2 completely different ways of doing things- how could they yield the same results?

The original post was specifically that his CD's weren't quite as loud as professional ones. We both know you can slap a compressor and/or limiter on it and make it the same volume but it still probably won't sound as good.

At least that's how I interpreted what Massive was saying.
 
thebecomingsuit said:
Hi,

My band has recorded some tracks using adobe audition. When we try to mixdown and master the tracks they all end up slightly quieter than commercial cds. The procedure we used was to mix all tracks to a wav file then normalize to 0db, is this correct. If we try to increase the volume of the track it starts to peak. Can anyone recommend a good way of mastering tracks in audition.

Thanks
Click to expand...

By normalizing you have raised the track to it's maximum level. The main way to increase the perceived loudness beyond that is by reducing the dynamic range of the music and then applying make-up gain. Normalization is essentially "make-up gain" but is better done after a reduction in the dynamic range so that the average level is higher.

To reduce the dynamic range try a combination of compression and limiting. In general a compressor will "thicken and glue" the mix while a limiter reduces transients and allows for a larger increase in overall loudness.

As John mentioned how much of this abuse your mix can take is dependent on the quality of the mix, as well as your skill in applying the above techniques.
 
DavidK said:
I am very curious about this statement, as I have seen it here quite often. Keep in mind that I am a pro musician with a lot of experience as a session player, but am now getting into the producer side of things and have limited experience there:

What exactly are "teams of industry professionals"?? I have never seen this. I see a producer and perhap an engineer who sets up mics for sessions. When it is sent to a mastering house, I assume that one person (like you) masters it? I had my CD mastered by a guy with very big credits, one guy did it.

I can see how a Mariah Carey or Beyonce CD might have "teams of pros", but for most recordings, I cant see where a "team" of anything is involved. If anything, I think there might be too many cooks in the kitchen if too many people were involved. Correct??
Click to expand...

Some of the most important "team members" are the acousticians (or whatever their called), architects, and contractors that build a REAL studio with the best possible sound isolation and acoustics, so that you can capture a good performance with minimal noise.
 
DavidK said:
What exactly are "teams of industry professionals"?? I have never seen this. I see a producer and perhap an engineer who sets up mics for sessions. When it is sent to a mastering house, I assume that one person (like you) masters it? I had my CD mastered by a guy with very big credits, one guy did it.
Click to expand...
I think you are taking it a bit too literally. All he is saying is that someone in their untreated bedroom running reaper on a laptop monitoring through a boombox probably won't (possible, but unlikely) get the same type of results as the famous engineer/producer team working in the finest environment with the finest tools.

Most of it has to do with how the core sounds fit together and how much of what type of compression is used on what.
 
Farview said:
I think you are taking it a bit too literally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think I am :o :D I was more curious if there ARE literally teams working on projects. There is an overall mystique in recording, and one of the differences between home and "pro" recording is that the home hobbyist often doesnt have an accurate representation of how the pro end actually works.

Let's face it, it's getting blurry. The line between home and pro is changing everyday with advances in technology. It IS possible for someone with the right equipment and knowledge to make a nice recording in the confines of a home studio. Whether that gets played on the radio is a whole different subject and has to do with the "biz", but there are people working with VERY modest gear in a bedroom that are achieving some very impressive results.
 
DavidK said:
What exactly are "teams of industry professionals"?? I have never seen this. I see a producer and perhap an engineer who sets up mics for sessions. When it is sent to a mastering house, I assume that one person (like you) masters it?
Click to expand...
You have the AE, the tracking engineer, the producer, the manager, the artist(s), the mixing engineer and the mastering engineer. On some projects, some of those titles may be handled by one person, but on the big budget releasesm it's more likely to be individual people at most positions. They may not necessarily be a cohesive team working side-by-side any more than the lead actress, the best grip and the editor work together side-by-side on a movie, but they do make up the ensemble of pros that contribute to the making of it.

But I personally think the operative phrase in John's statement isn't the "team" part so much as the "from the first step..." part. Looked at that way, the emphasis is that professional care has been taken from step one, front-loading the responsibility for the production value. A great artistic performance in a great groom tracked with care and with vision towards the end result will get one far closer to a pro-level result than throwing pro gear and pro mastering at an amateur performance with amateur tracking and mixing ever will.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
You have the AE, the tracking engineer, the producer, the manager, the artist(s), the mixing engineer and the mastering engineer. On some projects, some of those titles may be handled by one person, but on the big budget releasesm it's more likely to be individual people at most positions. They may not necessarily be a cohesive team working side-by-side any more than the lead actress, the best grip and the editor work together side-by-side on a movie, but they do make up the ensemble of pros that contribute to the making of it.


G.
Click to expand...
Right. I think that most recording hobbyists would know this or most of it. Again, my point is the mystique involved in making records, and how that relates to the kid with Cubase on his computer. The artist part is self-explanitory, it's what is left that is often not understood. We could add Mariah Carey's entourage, bodyguards, catering, PR, hair stylist, personal gopher, on and on. The bottom line is that while the art of recording and the learning curve is incredibly complex, the actual process is not (usually). A band goes in a studio, there are 2-3 people on the other side of the glass. That stuff gets mixed together and sent to one guy who gets it ready to commit to disc.

As a session player/symphony guy, recordings are the easiest aspect of our jobs. We sit down, play, and go home. :D There is one guy adjusting mics at the beginning, another guy barking orders from a booth, and a third guy sitting next to him. Thats what it has been like in every session I have done, I have made 59 commercial CDs, 100s of commercials, and several films.
 
DavidK said:
...The bottom line is that while the art of recording and the learning curve is incredibly complex, the actual process is not (usually). A band goes in a studio, there are 2-3 people on the other side of the glass. That stuff gets mixed together and sent to one guy who gets it ready to commit to disc.

As a session player/symphony guy, recordings are the easiest aspect of our jobs. We sit down, play, and go home. :D There is one guy adjusting mics at the beginning, another guy barking orders from a booth, and a third guy sitting next to him.
Click to expand...
The pros do make it LOOK easy, don't they? :)

It's like saying that the learning curve to painting a picture is complex, but the actual process is not. There's usually one subject sitting in front of a canvas, and behind the canvas is one guy in a silly hat holding a board with spoltches of paint on it. All he as to do is apply that paint to a the canvas. Man, you can't get much easier than that :).

G.
 
DavidK said:
There is one guy adjusting mics at the beginning, another guy barking orders from a booth, and a third guy sitting next to him.
Click to expand...
That would be your garden variety team of professionals right there.
 
<--Newbie home brewer/amateur songwriter.


I have a lot to learn but what I have learned on the subject is that I would much rather let the volume of a mix suffer than the dynamics. The dynamics start suffering when you begin trying to tweak your mix to adjust soley for volume.

Why worry about volume of a mix...that's what that knob is for, right?

The only way to get both to sync up like you will hear on a Limp Bizkit track (not a shot - they had some world renowned engineers working that album) is by practicing your craft until your ears bleed, patience and more practice.

As a home brewer I realize that I am going to need a ton of practice and as I have been learning from forums such as these from experts who are freely giving up this information, my mixes have improved and are getting better with each new mix. I've even gone back and re-recorded music/vocals or remixed entire pieces with new knowledge I've come across.

I am having a blast right now and it is making me appreciate and get excited for the entire process now...not just the songwriting.
 
Acoustic-Fury said:
I have a lot to learn but what I have learned on the subject is that I would much rather let the volume of a mix suffer than the dynamics. The dynamics start suffering when you begin trying to tweak your mix to adjust soley for volume.

Why worry about volume of a mix...that's what that knob is for, right?

The only way to get both to sync up like you will hear on a Limp Bizkit track (not a shot - they had some world renowned engineers working that album) is by practicing your craft until your ears bleed, patience and more practice.

As a home brewer I realize that I am going to need a ton of practice and as I have been learning from forums such as these from experts who are freely giving up this information, my mixes have improved and are getting better with each new mix. I've even gone back and re-recorded music/vocals or remixed entire pieces with new knowledge I've come across.

I am having a blast right now and it is making me appreciate and get excited for the entire process now...not just the songwriting.
Click to expand...

I echo these sentiments. I won't go into the dynamics verses volume thing because I have already made my fair share of anti-volume rants/essays/stories. But to me, being aware that there is a journey to gain the skills and knowledge that the pro's have is what makes it so much more gratifying with every new bit of knowledge gained. The learning bit is the most fun bit to me, in almost everyting I do. Like after hours of reading up on anything, whether it's about recording, or just some music theory, those "Oh shit yeah of course!"-type epiphanies are almost more exciting to me than the idea of one day being an expert.

Learning is fun, and even more so when there are knowledgeable people keen to pass on their knowledge. I just wish more people would see the value in learning and researching these days, rather than expecting someone to hand it all to them on a plate. I have taught guitar, and used to get so frustrated with people who were just like "but I just want to be able to play the stuff you can play NOW! I don't want to have to go through all the learning stuff and practicing crap". They don't want to go through the motions of practicing, not being as good as you want to be yet, and driving yourself to get better.

Just like you can't expect to be able to shred as soon as you pick up a guitar, you can't expect to make the best produced album ever without years of learning and practice.

Sorry, went off topic there. And this wasn't directed at anyone specific whatsoever, apart from the annoying lazy guitar students I have had to deal with.
 
Acoustic-Fury said:
The only way to get both to sync up...is by practicing your craft until your ears bleed, patience and more practice.
Click to expand...
Amen.

BTW, stay away from the powdered yeast ;).

G.
 
Chris Shaeffer said:
I think Massive is referring to the "team" of people that work on a project from pre-production through post. Some of them never even see each other, but they all work together (in theory) to propel the project in a particular direction.

(snip)

The original post was specifically that his CD's weren't quite as loud as professional ones. We both know you can slap a compressor and/or limiter on it and make it the same volume but it still probably won't sound as good.

At least that's how I interpreted what Massive was saying.
Click to expand...
That's it in a nutshell. A recording has to have the potential to be loud if it's ever going to be "loud" (as much as even excellently done "loud" still sounds crappy compared to more "normal" levels). If it's really loud and it still sounds good, it was probably an amazing recording. Those don't come easily.

I shouldn't say that - They *do* come easily to some - Usually experienced engineers with great ears and the vision and gear it takes to capture the right sounds.

The original question, as asked, shows somewhat of a lack of understanding the principals behind such recordings. Again, no disrespect - Just an observation. The point is to make GREAT recordings. Great recordings are (unfortunately) much easier to smash the crap out of - I mean, "bring to an acceptable commercial level."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top