A Guide to a Louder Mix

Ninja_Drummer

New member
Well, I decided to indulge more in my knowledge of mastering by browsing the web for any tips. I came across this fairly lengthy but thorough article that breaks down different techniques while not simply persuading an engineer to simply slap on a maximizer, compressor, or limiter for the sake of getting that "loudness" we all seek. I find it very helpful in that it gives you a variety of options to choose from and how each technique would best apply in different situations

I apologize if this article has been noted already, but I feel it would make it easier for those of us that want that quick find on how to get mixes "louder".

Crafting Loud Mixes That Sound Great
 
That is a good article in my opinion, the only issue is if you are starting out then it's enough to get a good mix never mind a loud mix. If you are new try and understand what constitutes a good mix down. Most mixing takes quite a lot of time even from a proficient mix engineer who has years of experience. Sure he or she will nail the rough balance a liot quicker but all the small details take a lot of automation time. Typically a vocal track and harmonies in itself could take 1/2 a day + to effect and get to sit perfectly in a track.

Remember Rome was not built in a day have patience and keep at it and do not be disheartened.

cheers

SafeandSound Mastering
Mastering services online
 
Leaving behind all the hoo haw over the loudness wars, etc, articles like this always get me thinking...

[DIGRESSION]

WHY do we have an obsession with LOUD? Regardless of how you get there, or what the ethos is behind your motives, or how clever your tricks are to somehow make a mix louder yet at the same time FEEL dynamic, the fact still remains, we simply want things louder. It's proven in all the countless threads - started mostly by misinformed newbies - asking how to achieve it. We are, simply, afraid of turning up the volume knob higher than we're used to.

I feel like people have started worrying about everything that is irrelevant in audio besides the audio itself, particularly in music production. Aspiring engineers have this notion that you have to know EVERY SINGLE TINY DETAIL of EVERY SINGLE FACET of audio and the technology that surrounds it in order to be competent and produce good work. There is thread upon thread up on thread of discussions and arguments like the minutia of internal DAW precision, summing engines being broken vs. being technically perfect, 96kHz vs 192kHz, the best preamp for a specific source, the best microphone under $100, how to make the loudest master, how to get that "analogue" sound, and more obsessing, obsessing, obsessing.

Here's the real truth.

Tools are tools. A DAW is a tool. It records audio. Tape was also a tool. It also recorded audio. Great records have been made on both; some with very expensive gear, and some with cheap gear. What mattered was what was captured at the source and HOW it was captured. PERIOD.

A case in point is the AKG C1000. For years, everyone and their grandmother - including my colleagues and I - have had nothing but disdain for this microphone. It can probably be said to be the most hated microphone of all time. However. Once you cut all the bullshit and internet "wisdom" down, what you are left with is actually very capable microphone. There is no doubt in my mind that you can get not just a GOOD sound, but a GREAT sound with the C1000. I was going to go on and list WHY I think this is, but there is a post made a by user over at Gearslutz, that replies to a review of the C1000 where the OP ripped it apart. Here's what the reply was and I agree with it 100%...in fact, I with it agree so much so that it changed my mind set:

jnorman said:
i am going to have to rebut the previous review, simply because there are far too many beginning engineers who just do not have enough experience to know how to use mics properly. having been involved in recording engineering and production since the early 1970s, i have learned that even the most expensive mics can sound horrible with incorrect placement and angling, and even the most humble of mics can do a perfectly good job when used appropriately. i mean no disrespect to the original poster/reviewer here - i originally had a similar reaction to many pieces of gear - i remember my first expensive preamp, and comparing it to preamps in a little mackie mixer and being basically unable to hear why i had just spent $2000 - it can be quite disturbing...

the AKG C1000 is one of those mics that has somehow developed a poor reputation because, due to its relatively low cost combined with the AKG name, is often the first SDC mic purchased by entry level project studio engineers. these generally inexperienced engineers, not understanding the intricacies of careful mic placement and off-axis angling, will try to use the C1000 at very close range, directly on-axis, and conclude that the mic is harsh or distorted.

I have successfully used C1000s on several commercial recordings, and while i do have other, much more expensive mics, i can certainly get acceptable results from the C1000.

here are a couple of excerpts from a review of the C1000 from andy hong of Tape Op for your consideration:

" My all-time favorite guitar amp microphone is the AKG C-1000S electret condenser."

"Alongside my trusty C-1000S, I’ve tried many different mics — cheap to expensive, standard to whacky. Shure, Neumann, Schoeps, Sennheiser, Royer, Earthworks, RØDE, RCA, Radio Shack, even built-ins on portable tape recorders — you name it. In essence, I do a shootout between the C-1000S and a second mic every time I record an amp. The C-1000S almost always wins. Something about the quality of its creamy midrange response makes it really cut through in a mix — without sounding woolly, brittle, or harsh!"

"For example, on very distorted guitars, I found that a Neumann U47fet going through a Great River MP-2NV sounded similar to a C-1000S through a Neve 1272 — enough so that I had a hard time differentiating the tracks."

"Where can you hear examples of the C-1000S on guitar? Check out any of the studio albums released in the last four or five years from Karate, Helms, Victory at Sea, and Rosa Chance Well; Chris Brokaw’s tracks on his split with Viva las Vegas; or Thalia Zedek’s latest EP. All of these recordings feature the C-1000S as the primary guitar amp mic."

Another way to judge this mic against its peers is listening to Lynn Fuston's comprehensive 3D Mic CD, which allows for blind listening comparisons of a large number of mics ranging from the venerable SM57 to vintage U47s and ELA-M251s. I think you will find that the C1000 turns in perfectly fine tracks. in fact, i am confident that you will be unable to discern most $500 mics from $5000 mics, and you may be amazed at how wonderful even the sub-$100 sm57 can sound in the right hands. sure, the mics will all sound just a tad different, but "different" does not necessarily mean "better"...

As always, do not buy gear based on opinions you read on forums - find actual recorded material featuring the gear you are interested in, and use your own ears to make judgements. test the gear yourself if at all possible.

So I used the C1000 (I have two) at my next session on toms. They sounded great. They really did. In fact, it's some of the best tom sounds I've ever gotten. Even though they're condensers, they don't make the cymbals strident either.

Anyway, as you can tell, I'm getting so sick of all of the bullshit that doesn't matter. Recording music is about creating emotions. It is NOT about the gear. The gear is incidental which is EXACTLY why you get the best recordings when you've placed the right microphone correctly and the band is smokin'. You can't beat it with any DAW trickery, 64-bit, minutia obsessed, time wasting clownfuckery. Forget about the screen. Forget about making it loud. Forget about all of that.

GET ON WITH MAKING MUSIC AND GET YOUR HANDS ON THOSE FADERS.

Cheers :)
 
lol,

Greg I feel the same way whenever someone boos the loudness war. I mean Death Magnetic was certainly shit and good example of it going overboard, but the average mix today doesn't bother me.

Also: The key to a loud mix, is a good well balanced mix (IMO of course).
 
The answer to the question is in the erroneous titles. That is, crafting louder masters that sound great starts with mixes that sound loud and good to begin with. At least 95% of what makes a master sound loud and good happens in the mix stage.
 
lol,

Greg I feel the same way whenever someone boos the loudness war. I mean Death Magnetic was certainly shit and good example of it going overboard, but the average mix today doesn't bother me.

Also: The key to a loud mix, is a good well balanced mix (IMO of course).

I agree. Modern loudness doesn't bother me one bit. I don't care. I'm old enough to remember vinyl and big ugly hi-fis taking up the living room. That shit sounded great. Modern stuff sounds good too.

As for Death Magnetic, it doesn't bother me. I've never heard it and never plan to, so I'm cool with however it sounds.
 
As for Death Magnetic, it doesn't bother me. I've never heard it and never plan to, so I'm cool with however it sounds.

It's bad both musically (I hate modern metallica lol) and on a loudness level.

When I was in college, part of my deal was doing radio stuff. The radio station got the CD and I gave it a listen, it's really bad.
 
It's bad both musically (I hate modern metallica lol) and on a loudness level.

When I was in college, part of my deal was doing radio stuff. The radio station got the CD and I gave it a listen, it's really bad.

If you don't already know the story, read up on how Iggy remixed/remastered "Raw Power". It's generally regarded as the loudest album ever. It's pretty funny.
 
Modern loudness doesn't bother me one bit. I don't care. I'm old enough to remember vinyl and big ugly hi-fis taking up the living room. That shit sounded great. Modern stuff sounds good too.
Ever since I first started recording albums I had onto cassette in the 70s, the goal was always to get it loud. And different records were obviously mastered at differing levels. In the walkman era, the louder the recording level, the less volume you had to apply on the walkman, so the less battery power you took up, so the longer the batteries lasted so the more you saved cash~wise.
It was all very logical.
But going back to the late 50s and early 60s, British engineers were hugely envious of their American counterparts because American records were mastered so much louder than British ones. 'Hotter' was the term they used. It was close to 10 years after the Americans before British studios were regularly turning out hot masters.
The thing about loud masters is really nothing new. It existed in the analog only age. It exists now. There's always been varying degrees of mastering volume encoded on records/tapes/CDs/MP3s.
 
Ever since I first started recording albums I had onto cassette in the 70s, the goal was always to get it loud.

Yes! My dad used to have some nice stereo equipment. When I'd transfer my albums to cassette, I could set the levels so I could get max loudness onto tape without distortion. It literally had meters and gain knobs for the L and R channel. I'd make the needles just almost bump up to the red and press record. The result was the loudest, clearest, richest cassette dubs in the neighborhood. Kids from all around gave me their shit to transfer to tape for them. I started the loudness war of the gulf coast USA. :D
 
Ever since I first started recording albums I had onto cassette in the 70s, the goal was always to get it loud. And different records were obviously mastered at differing levels. In the walkman era, the louder the recording level, the less volume you had to apply on the walkman, so the less battery power you took up, so the longer the batteries lasted so the more you saved cash~wise.
It was all very logical.

Except battery consumption is much more affected by wattage (power drawn through the amp section by the headphones) than gain (how much the voltage is boosted before the headphone amp). How loud it is matters more than how much you have to turn it up.
 
Back when my cassette walkman would start slowing down from weakening batteries, I'd have to turn the volume down a little and the speed would pick back up.
 
Back
Top