Burning to CD....level is very quiet

H

Heat

New member
I am burning my wav files to CD from Cool Edit....I am using adaptec Cd creator for CD burning. My problem is any wav file I burn to CD, volume is very low....ive read other posts on this...and have already normalized it to near %100 before burning.....when i play back my file from the computer..the volume is at a great level....it just drops when i burn to CD....is this just a problem of lack of "professional" mastering...or is there an easier step i am overlooking........ Thanks to all

Heat
 
I don't mean to patronise, but if you are palying the CD form your ROM drive, have you made sure that the CD output level is set the same as the digital output level in the windows sound settings (ie the little speaker icon in the bottom-right corner of the screen)?

matt
 
good call cakey

Heat: the volume on the burned CD will be the same as the source (wav file)
 
Referencing material is quite hard to do in the hard drive realm. You have to consider a few things.

First, you can only do a real comparison if you are using the same converters.

In this case, if you play your CD on your computer, you will be running the audio from the CD through a D/A conversion FROM THE CD PLAYER in your computer, NOT the sound cards D/A converter, which does not contain as good of converters as the sound card does. So, trying to compare what is on CD with a .wav file is not possible because the .wav file will enjoy a cleaner D/A conversion from the sound card.

So, if you are really needing to compare .wav files to your newly created .cda file, you should try ripping the just created CD as a new .wav file back on the hard drive and comparing it to the original .wav file. Ripping, if done with a good ripper, will make a exact digital clone of what is on your CD and create a .wav file from it. Then you can compare the FROM CD .WAV FILE to the ORIGINAL .WAV FILE with the same converters.

A trick I use is to record some reference material to the hard drive. I use a professionaly done CD from a like style artist and record the song digitally to the hard drive. This way, I can compare the professional CD's .wav file to the .wav file that I am mastering through the same D/A converters.

You cannot however expect the performance of a computers sound cards D/A converters to sound the same as a CD players D/A converter, even if you are using the same amp and speakers to listen to them through. I used to have a cheapo Yamaha sound card that I ran to my mixers 2 Track return on my mixer, and it's D/A quality was no where near as good as my Marantz CDR burner's D/A converters running into the other 2 Track return on the mixer. The Marantz unit sounded louder in this case, even with the soundcards levels all maxed out. So, you have to remember to use the same D/A converters for any real comparison to be made.

As far as I know, and have never heard anything that disagrees with this, the process of authoring a CD does not cause any degregation to the sound quality of the original .wav file at all.
Ed
 
Thanks for the reply....yes cakey I did check volume levels, and they are at where they should be ( its not patronizing..sometmes you overlook the simplest things the most )

Sounusman...what you are saying makes sense...i appreciate your response.....staying on the subject of normalizing....is this generally the best way to get a good volume on your master track...the one problem i run into on normalization is alot of times i have a good mix...and after normalizing..my drums are now too loud.....is there other ways???? Compression mabye...i unfortunaley am only using the compressor software in Cool Edit...its not that great....it makes my tracks...pulsate..or "breathe" as some people call it...mabye its time to break down and buy a nice dbx comp...... tell me what you think...........Heat
 
I don't recommend normalizing because it only deals with one aspect of sound, Peak Level. Basically, normalizing raises the Peak Level of all the tunes to the same level.

But, let's say that the difference between Peak Level, and Average Level (the level that the music is mostly at) is widely different on one song, but not too much different on another. If you normalize both songs, the song with the less difference between Average Level and Peak Level will be louder because the Average Level can be brought up much closer to the maximum level then the song with a big difference between Average Level and Peak Level can because normailizing only raises the level up to the max (or wherever you set it) but doesn't deal with raising the Average Level to match another tune.

Compression is really the only way to go here, or some good limiting. But yes, compression on program material is a tricky deal. It requires very high end compressors, or plugin's, and also requires a very good knowledge of how to use it with program material. That is why Mastering Engineers make the bucks, they possess both!

Another thing about dealing with Average Levels is that often you need to use some very well done EQ on the mix BEFORE the compressor so that you don't have to compress as much.

So, if you are expecting to get yours mixes to have the same relative loudness as many commercial CD's have, you will first need mixes that are first class, then you will need killer mastering tools to work with, then a lot of experience in mastering. Lacking any of the above is generally going to produce CD's that may be louder than crap, but will lack natural dynamics, and will sound very dull and lifeless. Hey, I have great tools for PC mastering and still don't consider myself to be that great at it. Even with my experience with a lot of tracking and mixing, my Mastering skills still need time to develope.

So the key here is to "progress". Many of the answers you seek will come to you only by experimentation, not a quick answer and the coolest new toy at your disposal. I have heard plenty of Mastering jobs done by "graduates" of such and such recording school, using killer gear that sound downright awful. They "know" what the equipment does, but they lack the experience to really know how to apply it to what they are working with.

So the bottom line is, don't expect too much from yourself at first. Take small steps forward. Give yourself the time to think things over after they are done and reflect upon your choices, then take a stab at something new and learn from it. If you are anything like me, you will never think what you are doing is good enough, but your skills will improve a lot with a lot of experience.

Good luck.

Ed
 
If you are aiming to write a cd as your finished product then you _do_ need to normalise - but master first. What I meen by this is paste all your tracks into 1 wav file, then listen and get all the levels right comparitively, compress/limit if need be, eq tracks if need be but when you're done, and you have a wav file of your whole CD _then_ normalize it to get the peak level up to 0dB to optimize the level written to CD.

That's my opinion anyway.

Good luck!,

matt

Just thought I'd add that re-ripping the CD that you've just made to compare to the original wav is quite a neat idea - I may try that meself.

[This message has been edited by Cakey2 (edited 05-04-2000).]
 
I understand what you are trying to say Cakey2, but normalizing after mastering is redundant if you are mastering correctly.

Generally in mastering, you eq and compress (if you need to) the one song that you want all others to sound relavtive to on the finale CD. All other songs are then adjusted to be percieved as being as loud as and tonally the same as your reference tune. When you are done, you will find that all the songs will be "percieved" as being the same volume, an important distinction because different songs will sound the same volume with quite different RMS average levels. It is that Fletcher/Munson Relative Loudness Curve thing again... :)

Another reason that I don't recommend Normalizing after mastering is that the level changes made during Normalizing will create extented bit length which will produce quantiniztion errors during the D/A conversion. Dithering may need to be applied to hide the bad effects. But where the problem starts is that the mastered song was probably already dithered once, and applying another dither to it will produce an obvious "mask" to the sound.

So, you COULD wait to dither after normalizing, if your normalizer has a decent dither scheme that you can apply. But, normalizing after mastering is just a unnecessary step if you are following good mastering techniques.

If let's say that you want to master a tune for several different song combinations, like one for a compilation, one for all the songs by an artist, etc....then the same song probably needs to be mastered each time to fit with the other songs on the CD. Makes sense right?

Mastering is about getting all the songs on the same CD to sound somewhat relative to each other. The same song would need to sound quite different if combined with different songs depending upon the combination of songs that is desired on any particular CD.

Anyway. It all still comes back to comparing all the songs on a CD to a reference song that will be on the same CD. You start by mastering the reference to sound good, then make the other sound somewhat similar.

When you do this, and if you check out the wave form of many professionally mastered songs, you will find that in a lot of cases, you will never get to 0db at all! Yup, a lot of the best sounding masters I have heard peak as much as 2db below 0db and usually have an average RMS that is in the -10-15 range.

Now that is not to say that I have not seen CD's mastered that have an average RMS of around -6 (wow! not a lot of room for dynamics, but great for metal CD's... :))and where 0db is reached all the time. But hey, I have a CD here mastered by Brian (Big Bass) Gardner at Bernie Grundman mastering that has digital distortion on it!!! Yup, a $1000 mastering job by one of the best in the biz (for big low end stuff at least) that has distortion. Oops. On cheaper playback systems I never noticed it before, but a close listen on my studio monitors reveals this. Boy, there is no way my CD's are ever going to be that loud mainly because I don't have the mastering gear to pull it off. But, I have noticed that a lot of the best sounding CD's hardly ever reach the 0db limit. Tracy Chapmans first CD comes to mind, and it is a fine sounding CD, and sounds great on the radio too. So what that it's quieter then Metallica's newest, who cares? It sounds more natural.

So, the point I am trying to make is don't get all caught up in the volume game here. Many of us do not posses the necessary equipment to compete with the big mastering houses anyway, so you will just be hurting your music trying to get it as loud as the big mastering houses can. I am using Wavelab with Waves and Steinberg Mastering Edition plug in's and it just does not sound as good as the stuff another local mastering guy uses (Weiss digital eq's and compressors, Sadie mastering software, etc...) but, I don't have that kind of money to spend either on mastering gear. So, I live with the shortfall. It is okay with me, the stuff I have works reasonably well, and match's the quality of alot of the product that my humble project studio produces. If the big time game was my aim, I would need the better gear, bottom line. Yes, in time I will learn to maximize the use of what I got but at it's best, but it still will not work as well as the better gear. Of course by the time I get the maximum use out of it, the better gear will just get better and I will be that much farther behind the game... :) Oh well.

I am sitting on most of the submissions for the Homerecording.com Compilation CD here. There is stuff here submitted that maxed out and still doesn't sound as loud as songs I have mastered that don't have as high of RMS level. Some of it has very obvious compression that is affecting the songs ability to "breath". Transients are cut off. The "air" is lost. In fact, all the stuff I master also is usually cut at -.3db, so it is not even at digital 0db! So, normalize all you want, it is still a lousy way to increase volume, and not a very accurate way to produce a good relative loudness from song to song.

Peace.

Ed

[This message has been edited by sonusman (edited 05-04-2000).]
 
Hang on, isn't that pretty much what I said?

I know what mastering is. I was just making the point that if you end up having a series of tracks for your CD it's entirely possible that they can sound perfectly OK in relation to each other (ie well mastered) but that the peak of the waveform only comes up to -30dB. Then when you write to CD it's going to sound quiet compared to all the other CDs in your collection. I essentially agree with you - the perceived 'loudness' of your record is governed not by the overall volume but by the relative levels of you tracks. But you don't want to put your newly written CD of your life's work in the CD player after just listening to your favourite Alanis CD to find that you can't hear it without whacking your amp up to full. Obviously, if you've managed to keep your loudest track up at -2 to 2 dB throughout mixing/mastering, whatever, then you ain't gonna need to normalise, fair enough, but I tend, with my limited experience, to concentrate on the sound during mixing/mastering, and not the overall level. But that's just me.

Again, if you're getting audible deterioration when you perform digital normalisation then you should steer well clear, but I do it all the time and have never had any problems.

And to repeat: I _don't_ normalise every song, that would be bad - I normalise the _whole album together_.

One more thing - what is 'extended bit length'? Aren't the words are always the same length? And I thought I understood digital...
 
Hey Cakey, go to www.digido.com . Bob Katz is better at explaining extended bit lengths then I am.... :)

The point about I was making about normalizing is that it is really not a needed function at all. Like I said in my last post, you master the one song that you want as your "reference" first, try to get it about as loud as you can stand it on your system using a tad of compression, and getting the tonal qualities just right with a tad of eq. Then, you use that song as the basis for mastering the rest of the tunes. The goal is to make all the other sound as loud, and fit a similar tonal quality as your reference song. When I do this, I tend to concentrate on the mellowist tune on the CD as my reference, and try to max it out as much as possible without mucking up to dynamics or transients. Then the louder songs, or more midrange heavy tunes are obviously going to need to be master at a little lower level to be "percieved" at the sound volume as the "reference" song. So, normalizing can actually mess up this technique because you may not ever get to digital 0 db on some tunes because they would be "percieved" as being louder if you did so. You get what I am saying?

I have never heard of any mastering engineer using a sort of "automatic" level adjuster for mastering. They pick a song for reference, then make the others sound as loud and with the same tonal characteristics as possible as compared to the reference song. If some of the songs wind up peaking at - 5 db to sound the same loudness as another song that peaks at 0 db, well, so what. Normalizing though would mess this up because the one song is already maxed out, it reached 0 db. But the song that didn't reach 0 db at all would now sound out of context with it because not only did you raise the peak level of the song with normalization, but you raised the RMS level, which is far more important overall. Then when you throw in the relative loudness stuff, well, it just doesn't work out that well. Sorry.

So, if normalization is working out for you, well, have at it. But I can assure you that it is not the best way available to you for mastering a CD.

Ed
 
Thanks for comments from both of you...it really teaches and encourages new people at this stuff.....i guess what your saying is what i was fearing you were going to say in the first place......1) i need to either send my CD to be mastered by the pros and pay the $$$$, or 2)i can buy some high end equipment and still spend lots of $$$$$, i dont know if i have the experience to do my own mastering......but like you said..ill learn while i do it....and yes Sonusman i am like you in respect you never think what you do is good enough............
 
Hey Heat, I am not necessarily saying that you should spend the money for mastering, just that if you are going to do it yourself, and want the best results, be prepared for the big learning curve through experimentation, and possibly having to upgrade stuff in your system, certainly software. What I was really getting at is that Normalization doesn't really work for effective mastering, and trying to illustrate why. In the process, you got a few things to think about trying. Hopefully, this thread has shown you why mastering houses spend a hell of a lot of money just to make a stereo mix sound good!!! A decent mastering house has an equipment cost of about $30K.....Obviously a lot more then many put into their whole recording system.

But, a clever, crafty person could do a pretty decent mastering job with a good soundcard (around $500) and some decent software and plug in's (around $1000) and almost, I'll say it again, almost achieve similar results. This is of course assuming that you spend the time to really learn how to use the stuff to it's fullest potential. I encourage you to try if budget is your concern for your product. If budget is no concern, then pay someone to do it and make them sweat... :D

Ed
 
Either I'm missing something or I'm just not getting my point across.

I go through the same process as you, sonusman. I pick one track which I'm familiar with and then listen and adjust the other tracks in relation to this, at this stage you would say that I had finished mastering, and that I should now write to CD. All I am saying is that I make sure that the loudest point in the whole mix ie over all the track, is at 0db. So, there will probably only be one point in the whole album's worth of songs that gets up to 0dB and everything else with be at the right 'perceived' (by me) level. I do this so that my ALBUM (not every song) is at the optimum level for playback and I don't end up with my CD sounding ridiculously quiet compared to commercial CDs.

So, is that so bad?
 
Hey guys.....im having the same problem again.........

Sonusman: I tried your refrencing trick of ripping a comparable professional CD..turn it to a .wav file, and then compared my file to it. I used Steinberg waves to master my .wav. I adjusted my .wav file so it was as loud..and in most cases had louder average volume than the professional ripped .wav file.

I then burned both of these files to CD-R...using both Steinberg...and Adaptec CD software to make sure it wasn't a software problem. When I listened to the results:

My track once burned to CD was significantly quieter than the other track that I had ripped.......i have listened to my CD-R on my home stereo...car stereo...computer CD-ROM..and it was always the same story...my track lacked significant volume compared to the ripped .wav file......mabye i missed one of your points somewhere...but im just getting a little frustrated trying to cure this problem.....does your CD burning equipment have anything to do with it??? i understanded the difference between profesionally stamped CD's and burned CD-R's....but this..i dont think would effect sound quality???

I appreciate your previous responses.....anything else that you guys can think of would be very helpful.....has anyone else had this problem...or is it just me???????


Heat
 
Boy Heat, at this point I really can't think of what the problem is. I use Wavelabs authoring program to burn my music CD's. I have compared the song's volume by playing it back into my computers soundcard via the digital inputs from the digital outputs of one of my CD players. The .cda file, and the original .wav file sound exactly the same through the same D/A converters. No volume difference at all.

Try ripping your mix from the CD onto the hard drive and compare it to the original .wav file you used to burn the CD. Is there a difference? If so, we could possibly narrow down the problem. But if it is exactly the same sounding (assuming that your ripping software is doing a digital copy onto the hard drive, not all of them do, some do a D/A A/D conversion from your computers CD Rom drive, watch out for this..)then the only thing I can think of is that your original .wav file IS NOT as loud as your reference material. In this case, I would probably blame either bad D/A converters from the soundcard, or an inadequate monitoring system.

I think another thing to remember is the qualitive difference between your recordings and a comparable professionally done CD may be quite different. Once again, if your mixes have a lot of low end information, or are overly bright compared to professionally done CD's, the relative loudness of the overall frequency response would apply. Really though, it takes some careful listening, and usually at decent volumes to compare the percieved volume of different mixes to each other. Mastering is better done at somewhat higher volumes, at least when you are trying to get the relatives levels of each song about the same. Mainly though, it just takes a lot of practice to get it all right. I am still trying to learn the fine art of it.

So, make sure that you ripping software is doing a Digital copy first. Then let me know.

Ed
 
Hey ED:

Ok..we will get this out of the way first...the Jazz suck so don't start...well see how they play at home.......

Allright...i ripped my track off of my CD using Steinberg Wavelab.....I then referenced this .wav file with my original .wav file that was used to burn the CD....here is what i found:

The ripped .wav file was the same volume level as the original .wav file...kind of strange i thought........i even ran statistical analysis on both samples using Cool Edit Pro...the original .wav file had a slightly higher peak amplitude than the ripped .wav...but nothing that was noticeable to my ears....

As far as monitoring goes:

I listened to my ripped .wav and original .wav through my studio monitors...and then thorugh my home stereo system.....and with the settings in the exact same place...listened to the burned CD of the .wav file........still a huge drop in volume when played back on CD.....I would want to blame it on my CD player....but i have listened to the CD-R on several different systems..and there is a noticable drop in volume.......

Any thoughts on this problem would be appreciated.


Heat
 
What operating level does your CD player work at? -10? +4? What is the operating level of your soundcard? -10? +4? Let's say for instance that your soundcard works at +4 operating level, and the CD player at -10, obviously there would be a 14db level different if you were to play both through the same amp/monitor setup. Also, if your soundcard uses 20 or 24 bit converters, the output level will be much higher then a CD players 16 bit converters. To illustrate, by Lynx One card has 24 bit converters and is hooked up to the 2 Tract return on my Soundcraft Ghost. Obviously, my Marantz CD player uses 16 bit converters, but both it and the soundcard operated at +4 output levels, but the 24 bit converters offer about a 6db increase in RMS level, even though the soundcard is playback a 16 bit file. So, that may be the difference between your CD player and your soundcard player the same song to the same monitors.

Now, you have compared the original .wav file to a ripped version of the same .wav file that was burned to a CD and found that they were eccentially identical (I have found that rippers DO alter the sound of of the CD's file somewhat, try ripping at 1X speed only!) so, your burned CD is not suffering from anything weird. You ARE using a SCSI CD Rom for ripping right? If not, you are ARE SURE that Wavelab is ripping a digital copy, and not using the CD Roms connection to the soundcard via the little 2 pin cable to the soundcard to rip?

I am still a little confused exactly were the problem is here. When you rip the song from CD that was burned from the .wav file, then compare it to the original .wav file, and ran an analysis on it, it was mostly identical and sounded the same through your computers soundcard right? So that is telling me that the burned CD is getting good info.

But when you play the original .wav through your home stereo system, and then play the CD through your home stereo system, there is a difference in volume? What are you playing the CD on, to your home system? And I am assuming you have your soundcards line outputs hooked directly to you home systems input (whichever input it may be)?

Once again, the soundcards converters may be higher bit resolution (I don't know because I don't know which soundcard you have) and/or may work at a different operating level then the CD player you using for comparison.

Really, there should be no difference at all between the orginal .wav file and the CD as far as levels go.

Ed
 
Sonusman,


To be honest with you I do not know which level my CD player runs at...it is a 1992 Pioneer PD-4700.....For my computer soundcard I use a 20 bit Event Layla....i think this is operating at +4...I dont really know how to check...I know I can adjust the output levels of the Layla to +4 and -10 on both the monitoring outputs...and regular line outputs..this level adjustment is made by using the mixing software that came with the Layla

Could this possibly be a leveling problem??? do I need to make sure all my levels are +4 on everything while I record, mix..and later burn to CD....I wouldnt think this would matter.....My home stereo is linked to my soundcard directly from two of the soundcards outputs..and as i mentioned befrore it is an older 92 Pioneer CD Player.....

And as far as ripping the CD goes...i am pretty sure it is being done through the SCSI connection...and it is a digital copy of the track.....none of this seems to make sense...why the ripped track is nearly the same as the source file...but once it is burned to CD the level drops...could the brand of CD-R matter...i mostlu use Maxwell 74 min CD's

Thanks Heat
 
Ah ha!!! Now we are getting somewhere.

Okay, you have a couple outputs from a 20 bit soundcard, maybe running at +4, maybe -10, going directly to your home stereo system. Now, you are comparing .wav files from this 20 bit card to your regular old CD player which has 16 bit converters that is going to your home stereo system. There is your problem.

The first possibility is that your soundcard may be running at +4. Your CD player for sure is running at -10. So, to the same home stereo preamp, there is a 14 db difference. But, let's say that your soundcard is in fact set to -10, still, it has 20 bit converters which will output a much hotter signal compared to 16 bit converters. In either case, you have a volume difference because the converters are not the same.

Disregard trying to compare the difference between what you hear from your soundcard to what you hear from your CD player. They will never sound the same.

As far as -10 and +4 are concerned, well, we had a long thread about this last summer on here. The consensus was that the +4 operating level provided more headroom, and a lower noise floor. An article was posted that claimed otherwise, but the professional standard for recording has always been at least +4 (there are some older 2" reel to reels that had a +13 operating level!!! Needed special tape because regular 2" tape would literally melt on the heads... :D) So, if all of your gear is able to run at +4, do it. If you have a piece that doesn't run at +4, then set everthing to -10. But usually -10 means unbalanced connections, which means a much bigger potential for noise to be introduced into your recording. There are some +4 unbalanced devices (my Lexicon LXP1 and 5 are both +4 unbalanced), but I have never seen a -10 balanced device before.

So, don't worry about the difference in sound from your CD player and your soundcard. Your soundcard is using much better converters that output a hotter signal.

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top