How do you do this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter guitarplayer08
  • Start date Start date
G

guitarplayer08

New member
I'm still a beginner on all these mixing/mastering stuff but i imported a commercial song to wavelab and i was looking at the peak of the waves.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v664/ns087/hr.jpg

My question is: How can they cut the wave peak straight like that?
In that circled area, I know that the wave is cut because it looks like it continued on up.

How can i do this? (cut the peak just before the clipping level)
 
Hard Limiter...

an example would be the Waves L1

you'd probably be better off just recording it lower...
 
It's called "ruining it" for the most part. Basically, making it sound like crap just to get it a little louder.

It's a very popular trend for some odd reason... :mad:
 
guitarplayer08 said:
I'm still a beginner on all these mixing/mastering stuff but i imported a commercial song to wavelab and i was looking at the peak of the waves.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v664/ns087/hr.jpg

My question is: How can they cut the wave peak straight like that?
In that circled area, I know that the wave is cut because it looks like it continued on up.

How can i do this? (cut the peak just before the clipping level)
Click to expand...
Have an excellent recording and send your amazing mix to Tom Lord-Alge or Chris Lord-Alge and let them have their ways with it.

Lesson: Leave the insane compression to the pros that know how to not make it sound like crapola.
 
bigwillz24 said:
Hard Limiter...

an example would be the Waves L1

you'd probably be better off just recording it lower...
Click to expand...

You just insert the Waves L1 in the master section and select your setting. Then you render the file and the new wave opens up in a new window and looks just like that.
 
JazzMang said:
Lesson: Leave the insane compression to the pros that know how to not make it sound like crapola.
Click to expand...
I have yet to hear or read a single pro that likes or agrees with the current "compress to square wave" fad. They all find it distasteful and disagreeable and any other dis-word you can think of.

They are unfortunately under pressure from everyone from the unwashed artists themselves to bozo producers to the clown colleges called record labels they work for to make the recording sound louder on the radio than the next guy's recording; they are operating under the misjudgement that just because a song is louder that it's more likely to get noticed.

That mentality tell me at least three things:

1. That these guys are just plain stupid - either that or they just have no brains left because they've beem too busy "smoking stuff" during the sessions.

2. That they're more interested in the profits than they are the product.

3. That they know that half the stuff they're pumping out into our ears is actually crapola, so they think they have to concentrate on things like volume to get the music to sell.

What would be cool would be if one of these bi-coastal nimrods would come up with this following idea: in a world where every pop track is compressed to a square wave and then over-modulated in the radio transmission, a song that has only the occasional transient -0.5 is actually going to *stand out*. When the kiddies have to pay attention long enough to turn up the volume to listen to it, you already have them halfway hooked. Then when the next guy comes along with his digital zero square wave of a song and causes the kiddies' to jump out of their jeans and then wipe the blood from their ear canal, that will be a bad thing.

Yeah...that'll happen. As soon as I flap my arms and fly to Jupiter...

G.
 
DISCLAIMER: The following is all IME, IMO, YMMV, yada, yada, etc. Take it as you will...

There are a couple sayings that I live by that normally... (A) Mix with your ears, not your eyes - (B) Some gear does things with "more style" than other gear.

Here's a prime VISUAL example of (B) which relates to (A) and leads to (C) below...

http://www.massivemastering.com/special/loudness.jpg

The top is the untouched mix file - Healthily and happily undistorted, with excellent dynamics and a wonderful "smooth" and "warm" quality to it, sitting around -19dBRMS

The second file was mastered through a fairly schveet analog chain into excellent quality A-to-D converters. It sits in the mid -11dBRMS area and "appears" to still retain a good amount of dynamics (which it does) and a certain "smooth" and "warm" quality (which it also does).

The bottom version is the same file, through the same chain except for the limiting - which was accomplished through my personal favorite digital limiter, the UAD Precision Limiter. It sits a little lower in volume in the low area of -12dBRMS and "appears" to be essentially clipped with less dynamics (which is true) and a certain "cold" and "harsh" quality, mostly in the highs and upper mids (also true).

As good as the UAD limiter is (again, my personal favorite digital limter), the difference in appearance - AND sound - is pretty striking. And this is just one link in the chain - The one that arguably has the *least* effect on the overall sound.

Again, take it as you will. It doesn't take much to beat the crap out of a mix.

Hence my other saying - (C) When it counts, use the right tools. If you don't have them or don't know how to use them, find someone who does. And of course (D) If it doesn't count, and you don't care, do whatever the hell you want - Just don't be pissed off when nobody else cares either. :rolleyes:
 
Massive Master said:
The bottom version is the same file, through the same chain except for the limiting - which was accomplished through my personal favorite digital limiter, the UAD Precision Limiter. It sits a little lower in volume in the low area of -12dBRMS
Click to expand...
John,

Thanks for a very nice illustration and explanation. :) There is just one point I'm not sure of in that example: How is it that the bottom clip measures out to a lower average volume than the middle one?

Looking forward to your reply, Sensei.

G.
 
Why is the volume "-" like in -12.7dB. Isnt louder supposed to be "+"

Is there a guide of how to read all these stuff?

Sorry for being the dumbest person in this forum :o
 
guitarplayer08 said:
Why is the volume "-" like in -12.7dB. Isnt louder supposed to be "+"

Is there a guide of how to read all these stuff?

Sorry for being the dumbest person in this forum :o
Click to expand...

Remember, in digital, 0 dB is clipping. therefore all levels are displayed in decibels below 0 dB.
 
guitarplayer08 said:
Why is the volume "-" like in -12.7dB. Isnt louder supposed to be "+"

Is there a guide of how to read all these stuff?

Sorry for being the dumbest person in this forum :o
Click to expand...

that's why technically people are supposed to put dBFS, dBu, dBVU, dBW, etc. after the number so you know what people are talking about. Over time people have confused decibel (dB) as meaning "how loud something is".....when actuallity it is really only a measurement of the ratio of two numbers.
 
Last edited:
bennychico11 said:
that's why technically people are supposed to put dBFS, dBu, dBVU, dBW, etc. after the number so you know what people are talking about. Over time people have confused decibel (dB) as meaning "how loud something is".....when actuallity it is a really only a measurement of the ratio of two numbers.
Click to expand...
True.

John used RMS values which (to over-simplify a bit) means "average" values. Unless I'm mistaken, -12dBRMS means an average volume of -12dB relative to digital saturation.

Which is why I don't quite understand the captions and discription of his illustration. The lower clipped wavform he shows as averaging out at a level (apparent volume) -12.7dBRMS, whereas the non-clipped version in the middle averages out to -11.5dBRMS. This would make the clipped version quieter - in fact he even used the term "quieter" in his text post. Unless there is a lot of silence in the middle of that waveform that is at too high of a resolution to show at the zoom level of his sample display, which would drag the average volume down, I don't understand how the bottom clip could have a quieter average volume. Hence my question to him ;)

G.
 
Ahhh! Behold the magic of Analog... The (quieter) digitally limited version certainly does *LOOK* like it should be louder, doesn't it... But it's not. As hard as I tried to get it to the same apparent volume, it couldn't take the heat. Even with a limiter as cool as UAD's PL.

The simple explanation would be that the analog limiter is more... "organic" I suppose would be a good word -

And it's a testament to using your ears and not your eyes...

One thing I failed to mention is that the analog file peaked at -0.6dBfs while the digital file peaked at -0.1dBfs - So there's another 1/2dB advantage to the analog version - although I'm not going to adjust the volume of a -0.6dBfs file just to gain another couple tenths of a dB... That'd just be silly.
 
Just another reason to let the pro's do the mastering.....I don't see any analog equipment in my room! :D
 
I'm still trying to figure the math on that one. It's often hard to reconcile language with mathematics though :) .

I'm probably erroneous in my understanding of exactly how root-mean-square values relate to the "real world" (for lack of a better term), but I would think that with the digital limiter, because there are so many points on the waveform that are saturatiing/clipping, that there'd have to be more values in-between those saturation points that are at a lower volume than in the analog-limited version in order to drag the RMS value down. Just thinking out loud here...

It sounds like (pun quasi-intended :p ) the analog limiter may actually be a bit "tighter" in the tolerance of values that it limits than the digital algorithm is. By this I mean that if you have it limit at, say, -12dBRMS, it throws a brick wall up at -12, but leaves something at -12.1 alone. On the other hand, perhaps the digital algorithm (perhaps because of numerical rounding?) set -12 may have a "foam wall" that actually affects/limits the -12.1 peak as well? This would drop the overall average volume of the signal down because more peaks at more values are being limited.

Am I anywhere near close on this line of thought or am I waaay off? :confused:

Or is this an engineer's koan from Sensei Master John that we just have to meditate upon? :D

G.
 
guitarplayer08 said:
Sorry for being the dumbest person in this forum :o
Click to expand...

Nah, you couldn't possibly be the dumbest person in this forum - that would be ME :)
 
John,
Any audio examples? I'm intrigued. Thanks. I agree that second example sure "looks" purdy!
 
No clearance yet (took time out of a session to experiment with the client and thought it was awfully visually interesting) - I'll probably do it again some time with something I have clearance for...
 
Massive Master said:
DISCLAIMER: The following is all IME, IMO, YMMV, yada, yada, etc. Take it as you will...

There are a couple sayings that I live by that normally... (A) Mix with your ears, not your eyes - (B) Some gear does things with "more style" than other gear.

Here's a prime VISUAL example of (B) which relates to (A) and leads to (C) below...

http://www.massivemastering.com/special/loudness.jpg

The top is the untouched mix file - Healthily and happily undistorted, with excellent dynamics and a wonderful "smooth" and "warm" quality to it, sitting around -19dBRMS

The second file was mastered through a fairly schveet analog chain into excellent quality A-to-D converters. It sits in the mid -11dBRMS area and "appears" to still retain a good amount of dynamics (which it does) and a certain "smooth" and "warm" quality (which it also does).

The bottom version is the same file, through the same chain except for the limiting - which was accomplished through my personal favorite digital limiter, the UAD Precision Limiter. It sits a little lower in volume in the low area of -12dBRMS and "appears" to be essentially clipped with less dynamics (which is true) and a certain "cold" and "harsh" quality, mostly in the highs and upper mids (also true).

As good as the UAD limiter is (again, my personal favorite digital limter), the difference in appearance - AND sound - is pretty striking. And this is just one link in the chain - The one that arguably has the *least* effect on the overall sound.

Again, take it as you will. It doesn't take much to beat the crap out of a mix.

Hence my other saying - (C) When it counts, use the right tools. If you don't have them or don't know how to use them, find someone who does. And of course (D) If it doesn't count, and you don't care, do whatever the hell you want - Just don't be pissed off when nobody else cares either. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Thanks...I have to say your input has been one of the most generous offered by the M.E.'s that frequent this forum. It seems that when ever the question of "how do they get it louder" comes up, the typical response is that there's magic or voodoo involved. I just get so wound up when I hear responses like that. We all know that the common Joe doesn't have the skills, training, experience or the equipment to get the job done right but it's still nice to know at least in concept how it's done. Again, thanks John.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top