Normalization method?

[jimmys69]

I suppose my comment pre-supposed that all the songs were as loud as they could get without falling apart. When mastering a single, you can do what ever you want, but generally people will make it as loud as it can be without sounding like crap. Some songs have the potential to be louder than others simply because of the instrumentation and arrangement, other songs will never get that loud without being destroyed. You would have to match the one that can't go any farther, since you can always make something quieter without any sonic compromise.

Good answer!

 

[ashcat_lt]

Or just leave the quiet one a little quieter because that's the way it's supposed to be.

Turning down tracks which are already as loud as they can get means sacrificing headroom. They'd probably sound better if they had that bit of extra dynamic range back. Thus my comment re: un-compressing, thus (as everybody seems to agree) better to go back to the original mixes if at all possible.

I'm really hoping that we're not talking about re-mastering from .mp3!

 

[Farview]

Or just leave the quiet one a little quieter because that's the way it's supposed to be.

That makes sense if it is a ballad or something like that, but if it is the same sort of thing as the others, but was mixed in a different way that doesn't allow you to squash it as much as the rest, then it will seem out of place.

Turning down tracks which are already as loud as they can get means sacrificing headroom. They'd probably sound better if they had that bit of extra dynamic range back.

It doesn't change the headroom at all. We aren't really talking about processing the tracks again, just turning them down to match the one that can't be turned up to match the rest. The headroom of the track won't change at all.

Anyway, you have it backwards. Turning things down increases the headroom, it doesn't take it away.
Original mixes and mastering the new project from scratch is the way to go. If they are your songs and you don't have access to the original mixes, you screwed up big time and need to learn from your mistakes.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Anyway, you have it backwards. Turning things down increases the headroom, it doesn't take it away.

I don't think I said anything about taking away headroom. Well, I guess I did say "sacrifice", but by that I meant that you're wasting the headroom that would otherwise be available for the tracks at the new average level. If one track is sitting at -9dbfs RMS level, and maximized to -1dbfs peak, and you bring it down to match another that is at -12dbfs RMS and -1dbfs peak, then the peaks of the first file will hit 3db below those in the second. That, in my mind, is wasted headroom.

 

[Farview]

I don't think I said anything about taking away headroom. Well, I guess I did say "sacrifice", but by that I meant that you're wasting the headroom that would otherwise be available for the tracks at the new average level. If one track is sitting at -9dbfs RMS level, and maximized to -1dbfs peak, and you bring it down to match another that is at -12dbfs RMS and -1dbfs peak, then the peaks of the first file will hit 3db below those in the second. That, in my mind, is wasted headroom.

Assuming the other 10 songs are not exactly the same volume, you will have certain amounts of that on every song. Unless you take the already mastered tracks and slam them all into another limiter, just to make sure that the peaks are all the same while the rms level is the same...Probably ruining some songs in the process.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Assuming the other 10 songs are not exactly the same volume, you will have certain amounts of that on every song. Unless you take the already mastered tracks and slam them all into another limiter, just to make sure that the peaks are all the same while the rms level is the same...Probably ruining some songs in the process.

Right, that's why we want to go back to the original mixes and optimize each song's dynamic range in context of the album as whole. It might actually give some the more smashed songs a bit of room to breathe. Or you'll find out that the louder songs sound weak at the lower volume (even with more transient dynmaic), and that the quieter song was supposed to be quieter to begin.

 

[Farview]

Right, that's why we want to go back to the original mixes and optimize each song's dynamic range in context of the album as whole. It might actually give some the more smashed songs a bit of room to breathe. Or you'll find out that the louder songs sound weak at the lower volume (even with more transient dynmaic), and that the quieter song was supposed to be quieter to begin.

Right, but if you look back at my original post,

If you can only get the mastered files of the singles, you are stuck finding the quietest one and turning all the others down to match that volume level.

That was my suggestion for if you CANNOT get to the original mixes.

And again, I've run into plenty of situations where one song has less volume potential than other songs in the same batch, even though it should be just as loud. It normally has something to do with a lower tuning, so it doesn't have as much midrange energy and doesn't seem as loud, even though all the meters in the world will say that it is. In that instance, you have no choice but to level match the rest of the album to that. Obviously, if the quiet song is an acoustic ballad on an album full of death metal, it should be quieter...

 

[mixsit]

.. And again, I've run into plenty of situations where one song has less volume potential than other songs in the same batch, even though it should be just as loud. [snip..]
..In that instance, you have no choice but to level match the rest of the album to that. Obviously, if the quiet song is an acoustic ballad on an album full of death metal, it should be quieter...

I'll second that.
In any given string of songs in a project some can just sound better at higher density (pushed louder) than others.
Unless max loudness is the ultimate and primary concern trumping that- I have seen cases -in an 'album context here- some actually fit better tucked down a bit, even if it means after they've been limited.
I could see this happening even easier given the OP's sources coming from different sessions.