mix volume

B

bigtoe

New member
hey all -

like most peeps - my clients are becoming increasingly concerned with the overall volume of their mixes...and i've become increasingly disatisfied with the quality of mastering with the budgets they can afford.
the ol' "yes, it's loud but the thing sounds nothing like the original mix." when they do send it to a real mastering guy it can end up sounding awesome and reasonably loud, but rarely do they have the budget.

i'm ready to say - "ok it's my fault...what can i do as a mixer to get it there..."

so i'm looking for any tips on compressing individual elements in the mix to maximize volume. i do the usual compression of bass, vocals and split the kick and snare and mix one compressed and one not...i'm just not getting the volume i would like to get...

i don't use a 2 mix limiter...this could obviously help...but when ever i've tried - it sounds like i have no idea what i'm doing...i can't blame the compressor yet...

anyone want to share some ramblings on maximizing volume tastefully in the mix and/or with a two mix comp? i do the normal rock band stuff usually - drums, bass, vocals, etc...my compression tools are 3 rncs, 2 1176s, 2 161s, 2 la2 copies. yep - my high end pieces are mono units...

i do note that my kick and snare are usually the major offenders...i have tried using subgroups for bass and guitars and drums but again - it doesn't sound right to me...i guessing it's the user.

signed,

down but not out :eek:
 
bigtoe said:
...maximizing volume tastefully...
Click to expand...
My friend, that is an oxymoron. Take away the "oxy" and you have any client that wants extreme volume in a rock mix. :rolleyes:

Seriously, though, you won't do it by maxing volume in the mix. You need rather to mazimize quality in tracking;the less flaws in your raw tracks, the more abuse they'll take, and setting the mix to account for what you have planned in mastering; if Attitude Mastering causes your mixes to sound different [not suprising, BTW], then adjust your mixes to account for that change. "Lead" the mastering the way you'd "lead" a wide receiver.

Better yet, pour a bucket of water over your client's heads and tell them to snap out of it. Volume is useless.

G.
 
"You need rather to mazimize quality in tracking;the less flaws in your raw tracks, the more abuse they'll take, and setting the mix to account for what you have planned in mastering; if Attitude Mastering causes your mixes to sound different [not suprising, BTW], then adjust your mixes to account for that change. "Lead" the mastering the way you'd "lead" a wide receiver."

excellent advice...thank you. do you have suggestions on how to follow it? or am i asking a question that is really so song specific that it can't be answered?

here's a common problem 1 with my mixes under normal "mastering" aka - the guy who is building a client base by offering to do the band for free - the bottom end balloons under the heaving limiting...this buries the vocals...and causes the guitar to sound mucky.

i've taken to reducing low end on mixes...tailoring the under 100 on kick and bass and reducing guitars around 300...but then i don't really like the mixes...but the mastering guys don't screw it up then...

also - i've had projects come back screaming with top. biting guitars...

i understand what you are saying volumewise...i'm not into the HYPER VOLUME...just "competitive"...i like the moron bit! hilarious!

Mike
 
bigtoe said:
here's a common problem 1 with my mixes under normal "mastering" aka - the guy who is building a client base by offering to do the band for free - the bottom end balloons under the heaving limiting...this buries the vocals...and causes the guitar to sound mucky.

i've taken to reducing low end on mixes...tailoring the under 100 on kick and bass and reducing guitars around 300...but then i don't really like the mixes...but the mastering guys don't screw it up then
Click to expand...
That's the kind of thing I was talking about when I said "lead the mastering". Who cares if the unmasterd mix sucks if it will never be released? It's the final master that counts.

That said, however, I thought you were talking about DIY volume control. If you are bringing it to a seperate "ME" and that guy is giving you back masters that sound too boomy or too shrill and you *have* to lead them, they are amateurs posing as MEs who are doing little more than running your mix through a limiting plug or something like that. An ME is not supposed to give you back a mix that sound loud and crappy, and is not supposed to just work on volume without polishing the rest.

An ME who actually knows what they are doing is going to want to get a decent mix that gives them an idea of what the final product should sound like and will let them polish it properly. The idea of giving them a crippled mix so that their amateurish job does not make the mix sound worse would be both insulting and self-defeating to any ME worth more than free. You could do what he is doing yourself, and probably much better, quite honestly.

G.
 
listening to the radio, a lot of mixes that are horrendously loud have the drums relatively drowned out...this is the first thing that caught my attention when you said the kick and snare are usual offenders....
 
'I thought you were talking about DIY volume control.'

yep - i am. sorry - i'm not too hot at communicating...

'You could do what he is doing yourself, and probably much better, quite honestly'

yes! this is why i'm asking...for the past year or so i've been saying - "look - if you guys don't have the $ for mastering...use my mixes alone...don't take it to some guys or gals computer at home" and it has worked well. everyone is happy with the product - except they would like a bit more volume without it sounding processed for volume...as would i.

i'm asking for advice on the tricks and tools people use to get more volume out of the multitrack and on to the 2 mix...not a debate on volume...if anyone has any i'd appreciate hearing em...

pax
Mike
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
That said, however, I thought you were talking about DIY volume control. If you are bringing it to a seperate "ME" and that guy is giving you back masters that sound too boomy or too shrill and you *have* to lead them, they are amateurs posing as MEs who are doing little more than running your mix through a limiting plug or something like that. An ME is not supposed to give you back a mix that sound loud and crappy, and is not supposed to just work on volume without polishing the rest.
Click to expand...

Right, and if a mix comes back sounding bad, that is the *last* time you ever send that ME anything. The idea of compensating in the mix for an incompetent mastering job you know is coming later seems backwards to me.

Make the mix sound the way you want it to sound, and then send the tracks to a competent mastering engineer. If your clients can't afford a good mastering engineer, then you might as well do it yourself. Which is I guess your question in this thread.

But if the band wants a mastering engineer for free, then I guess they get what they pay for. As much as it hurts you hearing your mix bastardized like that, you just have to wash your hands of it.

I can see the seeming practicality of adjusting your mixes for what you know is a bad mastering job coming up, but this means that your mixes aren't really right either. I think you should just mix the song the way it should be mixed and then hand the band their tracks, with a recommendation or two for who should master it. If they choose not to take your advice, then when the tracks come back sounding like poo-poo maybe you'll have another shot at getting them on the right course. Or at least you'll be able to A/B you original mix with the right bass levels for them.
 
bigtoe said:
i'm asking for advice on the tricks and tools people use to get more volume out of the multitrack and on to the 2 mix...not a debate on volume...if anyone has any i'd appreciate hearing em...
Click to expand...

when I transfer the master tape into the pc I run it through a cheezy stereo 15-band graphic eq and a dbx 166xl for the limiter.
 
FALKEN said:
when I transfer the master tape into the pc I run it through a cheezy stereo 15-band graphic eq and a dbx 166xl for the limiter.
Click to expand...

hahahahaha...awesome. don't forget to normalize!

Mike
 
I suppose the obvious option would be to actually mix *into* a limiter. Not that I'm a fan of that idea, and not that you shouldn't insist on giving them an non-limited version also -- But at least that way, when the limiter is active, you know what you're hearing and may be able to trash the mix - Uh, I mean "compensate" - for it, to make them happy campers.
 
thanks guys...john - i wish my peeps used guys like you.

i wonder if 'bigger' mixers - are at all concerned about volume when they mix as opposed to waiting for the mastering end of it. it seems like maybe back in the day this may have been part of the mix part of things? i remember speaking with a really seasoned guy who said he'd mix to compensate for level and bass and such due to the cutting heads...the cd took that part out.

thanks again for all the suggestions...i think i am going to look into one of those aphex dominators...and in review some ideas on the net - before i buy i'm gonna just plug an RNC in the mix and see how everything is reacting...this seems wiser than cutting out stuff.

thanks again and if anyone one else has opinions.. i'm all ears...well if i was all ears i'd probably be better at this gig - but you know... :D

Mike
 
bigtoe said:
i wonder if 'bigger' mixers - are at all concerned about volume when they mix as opposed to waiting for the mastering end of it.
Click to expand...
The stuff I get in from the better engineers - Whether it's from zillion dollar rigs or simple home studios, almost never even come close to "loud" when they come in. The apparent volumes can vary widely and the peaks may be below -20dBFS on some mixes and up to -3dBFS on others.

Now, *could* they go through the motions and bring those -20 mixes up to -10 and keep it all good? Sure. Do they *need* to? Will it actually do anything positive? Not really. With the amount of available headroom, and with so many things going on that need to be attended to during the mixing sessions, the end volume is so unimportant...

In other words, they tend to not care about sheer volume. The mix needs to sound right without that concern *first* - Mixing FOR volume is usually the easiest way to lose sight of the forest through all those trees.

Of course, I would imagine most of these engineers have a feel for what will and what won't *handle* volume - But most of the time, great mixes with great dynamics and tons of headroom at every stage are the mixes that handle the sheer volume factor anyway.
 
On my main vertual bus In Sonar, I stick the Wave Arts Final plug to limit the mix at -1 DB. The music is mainly rock / industrial, or synthy stuff.

I'm an amiture, but I understand this isn't always good for all types of music but it seems to get everything up fine. If I don't do that. I use the Wavehammer and a couple of other plugs in Soundforge. I tried a demo of the Waves Masters bundle, which I found very impressive. Sadly out of my budget though.
 
You may want to try some slight amount of parallel compression on some of the tracks. I will increase volume without affecting transients if done correctly.

It's a pretty common technique for beefing up drums tracks for example. Other than that you will need to reduce the dynamic range in order to get things at a hotter level. This is best done during mastering so that you will be treating the entire CD with the proper levels rather than at the mixing stage when you can't hear the CD in its entirety.
 
I'm sure no one will agree but for fun let me proffer a notion.

We clearly live in a world of instant gratification. We are bombarded with information from every conceivable direction virtually at every moment of the day. I can check my e-mail and get the Dodger score and headline news from my cell phone instantly. Drive around Los Angeles at any given moment and witness blank face after blank face of motorist completely engulfed in a cell call and distracted from the simplest of driving chores. Children with attention spans of a minute or less. In my business of television promo I get 30 seconds or less to sell a product. Little surprise that the networks find the most effective promo's are 15 seconds or less.

Is it really THAT big of a surprise that the music industry supports compression levels that feel like a baseball bat to the head?? I don't work in the pop music industry but I have friends that do and their belief is you get about 10 seconds to make an impression cause that's all the kids are willing to devote to.

The near future both from a label perspective as well as a listener perspective is NOT going to support another Titanic endeavor like Dark Side of the Moon. Neither do I think anyone would be willing to devote that much attention to an hour's worth of music.

My love of the dynamic's of music is undeniable but no one is going to compete in todays market without the product being compressed. The blame does not fall on engineers and mastering houses but with the mind set of the consumer. Don't knock someone for trying to be competitive. The lastest David Gilmore effort is a wonderful dynamic project. It's not exactly rocketing up the charts (like it or not, of course is not withstanding)

I don't like it but it is, after all, a compressed world. As an engineer I hear endless complaints about the current "compression crisis" but really......if you REALLY had to compete. I mean REALLY, REALLY had to compete. Your career now on the line..... would you really step up to the plate and insist your product will be less "loud" than your competitor for the sake of dynamics?

I dunno that's of course noble but from a business perspective (and this is a business) not prudent.
 
Last edited:
Joseph Hanna said:
I don't like it but it is, after all, a compressed world. As an engineer I hear endless complaints about the current "compression crisis" but really......if you REALLY had to compete. I mean REALLY, REALLY had to compete. Your career now on the line..... would you really step up to the plate and insist your product will be less "loud" than your competitor for the sake of dynamics?

I dunno that's of course noble but from a business perspective (and this is a business) not prudent.
Click to expand...

It's more than business, it's art. If I was producing a commercial the above might be true, though contrasting your commercial with all of the others that are overbearing, loud, and constantly "in your face" has merit.

I've found that there's more longevity in music that's dynamic versus hypercompressed music. Time will tell, but I would bet that many of the hypercompressed discs that survive musically in 10 or so years will be remastered to have dynamics. Personally I can't even get through a complete disc of music that's been hypercompressed without giving my ears a break.

It's also true that after you turn down a hypercompressed disc to match the level of a disc that has dynamics it is perceived as having a lower volume and lacking punch since it's moving less air. An easy remedy that negates any "benefit".
 
Last edited:
Joseph Hanna said:
I'm sure no one will agree but for fun let me proffer a notion....
Click to expand...
Joe,

That was a very thoughtful and reasoned post that I agree with as far as it goes. For the fun of the discussion, I'd like to point out a few reasons why I think the theory is flawed, however.

1. THE ONLY PERMANENCE IS CHANGE
We *do* live in a generation of instant gratification. Much like the Roaring '20s. And the ragtime jazz of the time reflected that as well as today's flatline clone-rock does. But the Roaring 20's did not last - they're not called the Roaring Middle of the 20th Century :). Sure most of that can be contributed to the Great Depression, but frankly the sensibilities of the populace - along with the evolution of the music style - would have swung anyway.

As for today's music video/iPod generation, John Naisbitt's "High Tech/High Touch Megatrend" of a pendulum swing is already starting to play itself out: the more intrusive, commonplace and mobile such technoligies become in our lives, the more we seek to slow down and unchain from such devices; the gratification starts to come from more organic and robust sources. Bill Gates' recent Big Decision is the beginning of that high tech-to-high touch pendulum swing wrought large.

We are also starting to see that trend in music already. Let me cite a few examples of the very hottest albums of 2006:

- "Fishscale" by Ghostface Killah. Now I am not normally a fan of hip hop, but this surviving member of Wu Tang has teamed up with the A-List of bleeding edge producers in hip hop today to create arguably one of the best-produced albums of 2006 in any genre. Not only is the subject matter so way beyond the old-fashoned bling n' booty gangsta crap, sounding instead more like a 21st Centruy Jack Kerouack of the streets set to a beat, but the production value of the album is thoughtful, rich, lavish, and layered in a way not heard very often in the past 25 years. I heard a couple of tracks off this disc that really impressed me in production style and content. Now, I can't speak to it's RMS directly, having only heard it on that radio, but I can tell you that even if it is squashed, it definitely indicates some leading edge producers that are moving towards a technique and style that lends itself better to dynamics than it does to loudness, and could actually wind up with a trend in music production that takes advantage of full digital S/N for the first time in history.

- "St. Elsewhere" by Gnarls Barkley. Easily in the top 5 nationwide public and critical favorite discs of 2006 almost no matter who you ask, this is a full thematic album that is, in fact, being called by many critics the next "Dark Side of the Moon", for it's production style and value and for it's full-length thematic content.

There are other lesser examples of this trend - see the direction in which Pink and others of her ilk are now taking with their latest releases - but it is an emerging evolutionary (or cyclical, depending on how you view it) trend that is happening nontheless.

2. THE VOLUME WARS ARE OLD NEWS
The current volume wars have evolved from roots that long predate the short attention span, instant gratification generation that began sometime around MTV and Nintendo. While it's easy - and perhaps not entirely incorrect - to say that the volume wars make a nice fit with the ADHD generation (unlike my super-long forum posts :D) is not to say that the volume wars were an effect of, or a response to, that generation.

You work in television promo; you probably already know that the whole overmodulation or over-RMSing of commercials goes back to the golden days of AM radio, when the intention was to reach more customers because the higher you modulated an AM radio signal, the farther it away it could be heard. A distinct line can be traced from those days, through the TV of the 50s and 60s to the music market explosion wrought by album rock FM radio in the 70s and the advent of digital production and synth rock of the 80s to the grunge of the 90s, and now the high-tech home recording studio that puts digital production technology in the hands of people who couldn't properly play a I-IV-V riff in two different keys to save their lives.

The volume wars are not a modern product of today's times. They are simply the poorly-wrought reinvention of an idea who's time came and went before most of the people who frequent this board were even born.

3. QUALITY WILL ALWAYS TRUMP VOLUME
I keep hearing the proposition that one needs volume to compete. At best, that is a mantra of self-deception repeated by those with limited musial talent.

If you really, REALLY had to compete, the only way to do it is with quality product. If a performer's product is just not up to snuff, it matters not how loud it is, the public isn't going to hang on to it for very long. There's plenty of other loud stuff that's better. On the other hand, if you have a real quality product, people won't give a rat's ass if it's 3 or 4dBRMS quieter. They'll simply turn up the volume.

The idea that if it's worth listening to, but if it's not loud enough people won't notice it's good, is ludicrous. A great hook, instrumental virtuosity, or poigniant lyric will mean far more to the listener than sheer volume any day. And if a song lacks that kind of quality content, but has the loudness, people are just going to turn it down or turn it off.

And finally, in a world where everybody squeezes the shit out of their recordings, yet another squashed recording will be just another squashed recording. It's not competing, it's comforming. The truely dynamic recording will stand out as new, fresh, rebellious, anarchist; just the kind of stuff that The Demographic eats up. Then the cycle will start anew.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
On the other hand, if you have a real quality product, people won't give a rat's ass if it's 3 or 4dBRMS quieter. They'll simply turn up the volume.
Click to expand...
I get that *all the time* - "Hey man, we don't want to make someone have to turn up the volume on their i-pod when our tune comes on..." Yet for some reason, I've never heard *anyone* complain about having to do so - Except either the artist or a friend of the artists when asked about having to turn it up.

Think about it another way -

It's not YOUR tune that's too dynamic -

It's everybody else's tunes that are too squashed.
 
Massive Master said:
Think about it another way -

It's not YOUR tune that's too dynamic -

It's everybody else's tunes that are too squashed.
Click to expand...
Hear Hear!! I'm crying from the beauty of how true that statment is.
Anyway most people hear the loud smasheddead songs on the radio and day dream about there songs being the same (why? I have no idea). And/or there uneducated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top