A Different Approach

[RhythmRmixd]

I think I'm starting to get a normal practice down for how I like to record and mix tracks, and I'm really getting a feel for what works and what doesn't (as I'm sure many of you have long ago). Great, so what, you say.

As of late, I've found that recording my line-in synths at solid, but not over-bearing levels into stereo audio tracks, and then bringing the tracks I want to sit quieter in the mix down on the fader levels (as opposed to bringing the parts I want louder up in volume) has produced the best results. Sort of a subtractive EQ type approach, I suppose, except with volume faders instead. A primary reason for this was to allow additional headroom for dynamics-type processing on the louder tracks (kick, snare, etc.), but I'm finding that the overall sound of the final cd burn is sounding cleaner at higher volumes due to this (or at least I think).

I heard much talk about a mix having "potential" to be louder, and was wondering if maybe this type of mixing is one of the ways to acheive that potential. I've noticed a lot of my recent mixes are hovering in the -14 to
-17 rms range, and I'm wondering if I'm becoming a dynamics freak, because when I push the level up much further than this it really starts to sound like crap to me. This seems like it would be very unlike the normal for the genre of music I'm creating, hip hop and rap style beats.

Anyway, I'm thinking maybe the best way to make up for leftover headroom, the extra headroom I gained from throwing the faders down a little further at the mixing stage, would be at the mastering stage, instead of trying to keep levels higher in the mix beforehand?

 

[Massive Master]

SCORE!!!

Actually, just a few short years ago, -14dBRMS was considered "too damn loud."

 

[RhythmRmixd]

Maybe my ears finally have learned a thing or two...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

As of late, I've found that recording my line-in synths at solid, but not over-bearing levels into stereo audio tracks, and then bringing the tracks I want to sit quieter in the mix down on the fader levels (as opposed to bringing the parts I want louder up in volume) has produced the best results. Sort of a subtractive EQ type approach, I suppose, except with volume faders instead.

Oh, baby, how I LOVE to hear somebody say that turning down/cutting is actually a good thing sometimes. Congratualtion, you have discovered the whole half of music that most people totally forget about; the half that resides below zero gain! It's amazing how good things sound "down there" isn't it? Now, if I can only get that awful wanker of a pseudo-guitarist that lives on the block behind me to get into an amp with a volume control that goes to negative eleven...

I've noticed a lot of my recent mixes are hovering in the -14 to -17 rms range, and I'm wondering if I'm becoming a dynamics freak, because when I push the level up much further than this it really starts to sound like crap to me. This seems like it would be very unlike the normal for the genre of music I'm creating, hip hop and rap style beats.

Rhy, I have little experience in hip hop myself; most of my experience is in jazz, blues and rock so I might be talking out my ass here, but I gotta tell you that your RMS sounds right there in the sweet spot to me. In the project I'm working on right now the songs are all coming out to between -15 and -16dBRMS (-16 being the target for the move to CD), and that is typical for most of the studio music I work with (the live stuff is a different story altogether.)

Anyway, I'm thinking maybe the best way to make up for leftover headroom, the extra headroom I gained from throwing the faders down a little further at the mixing stage, would be at the mastering stage, instead of trying to keep levels higher in the mix beforehand?

Bullseye . Personally, give me about -6dB peak going into the mastering stage. Any transients that go much above that I usually will knock down manually from the mixdown as the first step in the mastering. Then I can start the rest of the mastering in earnest.

G.

 

[RhythmRmixd]

Rhy, I have little experience in hip hop myself; most of my experience is in jazz, blues and rock so I might be talking out my ass here, but I gotta tell you that your RMS sounds right there in the sweet spot to me. In the project I'm working on right now the songs are all coming out to between -15 and -16dBRMS (-16 being the target for the move to CD), and that is typical for most of the studio music I work with (the live stuff is a different story altogether.)

It still amazes me why commercial product is trying to go so LOUD. While my most recent mixes are a few notches below (and, really, just a few) the level of commercial mixes on my car's volume knob, my mixes were still at a more than reasonable level and sounded just fine volume-wise to me. I was quite pleased actually with the level, and the dynamic range was the icing on the cake for it. I know that commercial material uses equipment beyond my wildest dreams to help acheive "percieved" dynamic range at the craziest levels, but why do it? If my car stereo's volume knob can put even my mixes at a very loud level when I turn it up not even two thirds of the maximum volume, why does commercial feel they need to do it when I turn it up not even half of the way? Is it for people with crappy stereo systems and little boom boxes? From what I've finally seemed to gather, dynamics is too precious an aspect of the music to give it up so easily....

I know that speaking of my car stereo's volume knob in terms of comparing loudness levels between commercial mixes and my own is useless to you guys, but it is a quite effective learning tool since I understand how my car's stereo sounds, and I'm ultimately trying to mix for the music to sound its best in the car anyway. Sort of like "learning" my car stereo through comparison, similar to how I learn how my monitors translate. Hope that paints the picture better.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It still amazes me why commercial product is trying to go so LOUD. While my most recent mixes are a few notches below (and, really, just a few) the level of commercial mixes on my car's volume knob, my mixes were still at a more than reasonable level and sounded just fine volume-wise to me. I was quite pleased actually with the level, and the dynamic range was the icing on the cake for it. I know that commercial material uses equipment beyond my wildest dreams to help acheive "percieved" dynamic range at the craziest levels, but why do it? If my car stereo's volume knob can put even my mixes at a very loud level when I turn it up not even two thirds of the maximum volume, why does commercial feel they need to do it when I turn it up not even half of the way? Is it for people with crappy stereo systems and little boom boxes? From what I've finally seemed to gather, dynamics is too precious an aspect of the music to give it up so easily....

The simple answer is because the people originally making those decisions were (and are) people who are making what they think are good business decisions that have nothing to do with the quality of the music. They don't care if they are marketing recordings of feral cats farting in oil drums made on a 1950s wire dictaphone, as long as We The People buy the stuff. Thees people are the label managers. They believe the half-century-old-myth generated by the baboons who generate such myths that the louder the radio or TV commercial, the more people will hear it and the more of an impression it will make. To make thsee pinstriped pinheads even more wrong is they believe that already fautly maxim applies to music as it allegedly applies to sales pitches.

These practices officially mark the record label and product managers as the second least intelligent form of life on the planet. That make the least intelligent form of life on the planet those of us who believe that to copy those musically minded morons by pushing for -6dBRMS levels in our masters best way to compete with them.

G.

 

[Dogman]

Yep, after being here a while, and reading some god info from some good folks, including Massive, I turned the volumes way down, and started doing things like eq cuts, not boosts. Makes the sounds much better. Now, if they only had such good advice to make me a better musician.....
Ed

 

[RhythmRmixd]

I'm listening to more and more commercial product nowadays (speaking mostly of the type of music I do) and saying to myself, this sounds good, but could sound much better with more dynamic content. A few years ago, before I ever started recording and mixing, I would've never known the difference. I feel this is one of the reasons why loud ass music sells. Most people just don't know, or understand, the difference.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I feel this is one of the reasons why loud ass music sells. Most people just don't know, or understand, the difference.

And that's where the dilemma of business vs. creativity exists. Do you want to make music you're proud of and that those who know the difference can appreciate, or do you want your music to be bought by the teenagers with discressionary allowance whom spend the most money on the loud drek?

Personally I don't believe it's as cut-and-dried as that. I believe that content will sell, regardless of volume. The listener can always add their own volume.

My only question is why they always wait to do that until they pull up next to me at a red light.

G.

 

[RhythmRmixd]

Personally I don't believe it's as cut-and-dried as that. I believe that content will sell, regardless of volume. The listener can always add their own volume.

Definitely. I mean, if all the commercial music teenagers or whoever are buying is equally or close to equally (and ridiculously) loud, then the loudness factor sort of removes itself from the equation, but I think that still makes it far from acceptable. Content will always matter, if it sounds good and has been prepared well musically then people will like it, but to an extent. Not to say that half these kids don't buy music based on the name of the artist, what type of reputation they have in the industry or by popularity.

Take mainstream radio stations. Nothing but non-stop garbage, and not only is it garbage, it has to be repetitive garbage that I have to listen to (given that I choose to subject myself to it) for three months until they introduce new garbage for another 3 months. No variety whatsoever. It's sickening sometimes.

Of course, this is an entirely different type of discussion altogether....

 

[masteringhouse]

Actually, just a few short years ago, -14dBRMS was considered "too damn loud."

Ah, the "good old days" ...