How to get more volume?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vigo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vigo

Vigo

Member
So im at this state where i want the mix to sound good but be loud enough too, my problem is that i feel like its squashed when i raise it too much I added a compressor so i could work it out a little bit but i dont want to ruin the signal so what other options could I have? im a total noob at mastering im guessing it'll be mostly dynamic working?
 
I think a lot of what you'll be able to do volume-wise comes down to the tracking. Where was it tracked? 0db? -10db? -20db?

Tracking too hot eats up the headroom you need at mastering.

Also subtractive EQ is your friend during the mix stage.
 
Vigo said:
so what other options could I have?
Click to expand...

As DogBreath is saying your options really come during tracking, at this point all you can do is some EQ and Limiting. You can add some focus and clarity if you have gear that will operate in Mid/Side. You can do other things like stereo widening and tape and tube saturations, but you should know what your doing with them and they don't add volume.

Where is the mix peaking at now before processing ? and how does it sound with nothing on it ?
 
Dogbreath said:
Tracking too hot eats up the headroom you need at mastering.
Click to expand...

I'm no mastering expert, but I'm fairly certain that's not true, and would depend on where your faders are during mix down as opposed to tracking level.

If you track too hot, just pull all the faders down and your digital headroom is back. Simple as that.
 
MrWrenchey said:
I'm no mastering expert, but I'm fairly certain that's not true, and would depend on where your faders are during mix down as opposed to tracking level.

If you track too hot, just pull all the faders down and your digital headroom is back. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

This is the way I tend to think. It might be different in the analogue world, but in digital, it's all numbers - pull the master fader down half way and all the numbers get divided by 2 (depending on whether the fader is linear!). If someone can explain why this wouldn't be the case, I'd be all ears.

---------- Update ----------

jonny deep said:
This is the way I tend to think. It might be different in the analogue world, but in digital, it's all numbers - pull the master fader down half way and all the numbers get divided by 2 (depending on whether the fader is linear!). If someone can explain why this wouldn't be the case, I'd be all ears.
Click to expand...

Of course, signal to noise ratio at tracking is important so you're not getting too much hiss when you up a fader.
 
Yeah, I don't see how the tracking level will affect your mixing level, and then your "mastering level". 3 different things that are barely related.

OP, slap a limiter on your final mix. Look into "look ahead" limiter. It seems like people have become scared to even mention that, like it's become taboo to even say it any more. This isn't religion, it's just home-recorded music. If you want more volume, use a limiter.
 
Greg_L said:
And the ones that can't mix for shit anyway.
Click to expand...


Totally off-topic....but since you mentioned it, here's a miniature rant......................

Funny you say that, because I wanted to ask at least one person here, and maybe more than one, if they actually mix music in any way. There are a couple of people here who jump on every thread, especially in the Newbie section, offer their opinion like it's gospel, yet I wonder if all their "textbook" knowledge has actually ever been applied to actual music. In every profession, there always "Armchair textbook cowboys" who can sound technical as hell, yet have never actually DONE anything. I see it in music, I see it in the fitness industry, and I'm sure it exists in every single industry. People who think they're impressing people with their illusion of knowledge, but are actually considered a joke by people that might not be able to quote from a textbook as well as they do, but are actually able to produce results because they don't just talk, they DO.

Not sayin'....just sayin'......
 
That's why those guys prey on n00bs. A n00b can't/won't question them or call them out. The rest of us aren't allowed to verbally bash their internet-expert heads in because they hide in plain view in the n00b section where it's supposed to be "safe and nurturing".
 
Greg_L said:
That's why those guys prey on n00bs. A n00b can't/won't question them or call them out. The rest of us aren't allowed to verbally bash their internet-expert heads in because they hide in plain view in the n00b section where it's supposed to be "safe and nurturing".
Click to expand...
:D

OK, back to our regularly scheduled volume war. Brought to you by CNN. :D
 
Sponsored in part by Depends undergarments.

Hey, we all know that mixing and mastering can be a time consuming process, and it's only made worse by age induced incontinence and loud noises. Save yourself the trouble of having to constantly get up to go to the bathroom or having loud mixes literally scare the shit out of you. Strap on a pair of Depends and feel free to "educate" everyone in the n00b section with your scripted and unproven expertise all day and night long!
 
Don't know about anyone else but my hourly pee'ing is caused by medication post an operation for bladder cancer.

I anyone wants proof, PM me.

Dave.
 
I don't get how tracking too hot could NOT affect the end result.
:confused:

I mean you've got meters at yellow, plugins maxed, converters maxed and this is all at the very first stage? All adding artifacts on every track that's been pushed too hard.

I get the tracking, mixing and mastering are 3 different stages of the same project but that's just it. It's the same project and you've shot your wad in the first stage of it.
All that "maxing" has left behind artifacts that build up across all the tracks ya just tracked as hot as possible.

I don't get the reasoning here. What am I missing?
 
Dogbreath said:
I don't get how tracking too hot could NOT affect the end result.
:confused:
Click to expand...

They're talking about levels....not necessarily the sonic quality/integrity.
You can track hot....and still end up with a low level master, that just sounds distorted and shitty.
Or, you can track at "normal" and even low levels....and during the mastering stage crank it up loud enough to peel paint.

Makes sense...?
 
miroslav said:
They're talking about levels....not necessarily the sonic quality/integrity.
You can track hot....and still end up with a low level master, that just sounds distorted and shitty.
Or, you can track at "normal" and even low levels....and during the mastering stage crank it up loud enough to peel paint.

Makes sense...?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I meant. Of course, tracking in the red will SOUND bad. But how hot you record has nothing to do with how much head room you'll end up with. I mean, when you mix, just turn down your faders as low as you want. Maybe I'm the one that's missing something, but I don't see how recording so that you peak at -2, but turning down your faders when you mix is any different than recording so that you peak at -10 and not having to turn down your faders as much. It's the same thing. How hot or not hot you track has nothing to do with how much headroom you have when you mix.

I record really low. Like most of my tracks come in at -10 peak at the most. So, I'm not defending tracking loud at all. I'm just saying that it has nothing to do with how much headroom I have. I can track so that I peak at -1 and just set my faders lower when I mix. No difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top