Change of POETS
New member
How encouraging.cello_pudding said:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
The tough chasm of reasoning to jump is the fact that the latest $0.50 release sounds like crap, engineering-wise.Change of POETS said:
The mentality amongst many clinets and home engineers alike is that just because a "big studio" prodcued something that it automatically sounds good or has a sound that needs to be strived for. The irony is that these same folks are always quoting people like Bob Katz and Bruce Sweiden and the rest of the engineer/pundits as citing gospel, yet the rookies always seem to miss it every time these Apostoles of Audio bitch about how bad the RMS Wars are for the industry (which they do contsantly.)
I just put it this way; audio is no different from video when it comes to big boys and quality. Would you really want to make a movie like "Gigli", "White Chicks" or "Dukes of Hazzard" - all of which were produced by major production companies in major pro studios using big famoust star names in front of the camera (not counting Johnny Knoxville)? Just because a "big studio" puts somthing out, doesn't in and of itself mean it's any good. It's no different in audio...especially these days of run away RMSs.
And yes, I just happen to be very lucky that I fell into the orbit that I did. I count my blessings evey time I meet up with one of them or I get a call from them. I can just barely blow a harp and my entire guitar repitoire is awful versions of "Kicks" and "Pictures of Matchstick Men"
The fact that these guys even associate with me, let alone let me work with them and actually let me try to get their recordings to stick to tape never ceases to amaze me. Pure dumb luck.G.
Change of POETS
New member
The thing that pisses me off about it is, they don't listen to reason.SouthSIDE Glen said:
You came to me, to pay for a service because you needed an audio engineer... Yet, when I tell you the no-dynamic sound of a commercial release is pure crap, you piss and moan about it? If you wanted a crappy mix/master why did you come to me? Do it yourself, it'll be just as bad.
The irony is delightful.
I like your analogy though, Glen. I'll have to use that one.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I have yet to hear a recording at -10dBRMS that didn't sound WORLDS better at -15dBRMS.
Not that I'd want to ever establish a "standard" - But with most rock/R&B/HH, etc., -15dBRMS seems like a nice tradeoff between "power" and volume. Beyond that, there is almost always fairly severe compromise of the sound.
When it (this ridiculous volume competition between artists & labels - It's not the consumer, that's for sure) started, it was nasty. When it bloomed into the current insanity, it was sickening. I thought I'd get over it after being "forced" to apply insane amounts of gain to dozens and dozens of otherwise perfectly decent recordings - But I haven't. It still sickens me.
Not that I'd want to ever establish a "standard" - But with most rock/R&B/HH, etc., -15dBRMS seems like a nice tradeoff between "power" and volume. Beyond that, there is almost always fairly severe compromise of the sound.
When it (this ridiculous volume competition between artists & labels - It's not the consumer, that's for sure) started, it was nasty. When it bloomed into the current insanity, it was sickening. I thought I'd get over it after being "forced" to apply insane amounts of gain to dozens and dozens of otherwise perfectly decent recordings - But I haven't. It still sickens me.
RedStone
Active member
My case against RMS
Back onto the "what level do you mix at" ... I'm not a pro, but I've picked up a few tricks here and there ...
I generally ignore the master meters when I mix - because I'm too busy making sure all of my in-the-box plugins are doing their jobs, (and not internally clipping) - and also making sure that all of the track levels are in the right spot sonically and level wise. This is already half done at tracking as I record to 0dBU (around -18dBFS). So, I keep most of the track faders at unity, and I play with the bus faders to help things stick out, or recess in the mix while keeping the track meters bouncing between -25dB and -15dB. I guess all of that sums to between -12 and -6dB.
So why is everyone so concerned with RMS? 10db RMS is insane. Tell your clients who are so concerned with their RMS levels to listen to Rage Against the Machine's first album, or Pearl Jam's Vs - they were plenty loud and sold millions of records, ... and neither were as over the top as nearly everything now days. Give them a lesson in longevity through making better music/making better mixes with what they can bring to the table as opposed to how much you, or anyone else can lower the resolution of their music.
Someone said something about making music louder for radio. No way. Radio stations use compression and limiting specifically for the purpose of making all music that passes through the station the same volume (that's why Kelly clarkson and her guitar sound huge at the beginning of her ballads, but then the entire band seems to lack punch when they come in on the "Big Chorus" ... that is too much limiting and compression - which is the fault of the mastering/mixing engeneers, not the radio station). If your mix is even a little bit off spectrally (like some sibilance in the vocals), and you've degraded it to 10dB RMS - you can say "bye bye" to most of your vocal track, which will disintegrate with the Radio Statio's limiter's release.
Speaking of digital, a little less RMS will actually sound cleaner when converted to a 128kbps mp3/wma using audio grabber or windows media player.
[/rant]
Back onto the "what level do you mix at" ... I'm not a pro, but I've picked up a few tricks here and there ...
I generally ignore the master meters when I mix - because I'm too busy making sure all of my in-the-box plugins are doing their jobs, (and not internally clipping) - and also making sure that all of the track levels are in the right spot sonically and level wise. This is already half done at tracking as I record to 0dBU (around -18dBFS). So, I keep most of the track faders at unity, and I play with the bus faders to help things stick out, or recess in the mix while keeping the track meters bouncing between -25dB and -15dB. I guess all of that sums to between -12 and -6dB.
So why is everyone so concerned with RMS? 10db RMS is insane. Tell your clients who are so concerned with their RMS levels to listen to Rage Against the Machine's first album, or Pearl Jam's Vs - they were plenty loud and sold millions of records, ... and neither were as over the top as nearly everything now days. Give them a lesson in longevity through making better music/making better mixes with what they can bring to the table as opposed to how much you, or anyone else can lower the resolution of their music.
Someone said something about making music louder for radio. No way. Radio stations use compression and limiting specifically for the purpose of making all music that passes through the station the same volume (that's why Kelly clarkson and her guitar sound huge at the beginning of her ballads, but then the entire band seems to lack punch when they come in on the "Big Chorus" ... that is too much limiting and compression - which is the fault of the mastering/mixing engeneers, not the radio station). If your mix is even a little bit off spectrally (like some sibilance in the vocals), and you've degraded it to 10dB RMS - you can say "bye bye" to most of your vocal track, which will disintegrate with the Radio Statio's limiter's release.
Speaking of digital, a little less RMS will actually sound cleaner when converted to a 128kbps mp3/wma using audio grabber or windows media player.
[/rant]
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Like John said, on the Big Boy level it's the labels and the artists duking it out assininely in the RMS wars.
On our level where we're mostly dealing with clients with names who have not yet appears on a Billboard chart, it's mostly a bunch of uneducated ears interfaced with un-informed minds who simply believe "louder is better" and haven't thought about it any beyond that. I think we have the obligation to work out at least a gentleman's undertanding if not a working agreement just where each of the nominal producer responsibilities lie in such situations. How much of our ears, our expertise and our experience are they hiring? How much trust are they going to put into our technical and creative decisions?
If the bandleader or manager insists on their own full creative control, including decisions on volume, and that agreement is understood from the get go, then we just have to grin and bare it. (BTW, if we do det permission to use their stuff in our portfolio, that doesn't mean we can't keep a pre-smashed version of the mix for ourselves to use in that portfolio .)
However, if it's a band or performer with whom a short conversation reveals that they are hiring us as an engineer and not just a prosthetic arm, the opportunity is open to help them find an understanding that one of the main reasons they are hiring us is for our ears, and ask them to place a little benefit of doubt at least that our ears are telling us something their ears are not when it comes to volume.
Give them two mixes, one smashed and one not, and discuss with them why one sounds better then the other. Give them a brief education. If we've built their trust, they might actually listen to us. If not, and they still want the inferior one, so be it. Take their money and move on.
G.
On our level where we're mostly dealing with clients with names who have not yet appears on a Billboard chart, it's mostly a bunch of uneducated ears interfaced with un-informed minds who simply believe "louder is better" and haven't thought about it any beyond that. I think we have the obligation to work out at least a gentleman's undertanding if not a working agreement just where each of the nominal producer responsibilities lie in such situations. How much of our ears, our expertise and our experience are they hiring? How much trust are they going to put into our technical and creative decisions?
If the bandleader or manager insists on their own full creative control, including decisions on volume, and that agreement is understood from the get go, then we just have to grin and bare it. (BTW, if we do det permission to use their stuff in our portfolio, that doesn't mean we can't keep a pre-smashed version of the mix for ourselves to use in that portfolio
.)However, if it's a band or performer with whom a short conversation reveals that they are hiring us as an engineer and not just a prosthetic arm, the opportunity is open to help them find an understanding that one of the main reasons they are hiring us is for our ears, and ask them to place a little benefit of doubt at least that our ears are telling us something their ears are not when it comes to volume.
Give them two mixes, one smashed and one not, and discuss with them why one sounds better then the other. Give them a brief education. If we've built their trust, they might actually listen to us. If not, and they still want the inferior one, so be it. Take their money and move on.
G.
FattMusiek
New member
-9 db rms mixes are too loud? This is news to me. The "too loud" argument is very apparent to me in a mastering discussion, but mixing? I work in a pretty standard home studio environment; imperfect acoustics and reasonably priced gear. My goal is to get my songs sounding as good as they can with the tools I have. To me that means creating sounds that compete with mainstream songs (despite the odds) while trying to preserve those tried and true techniques. I read an article where Dave Pensado says "It's better to sound new than good" (or something very similar). I am partially opposed to this statement because I think today's audio is reaching its breaking point and older recordings sound better sonically. However, I have to agree with it to an extent because being a rogue recordist isn't going to get me anywhere in my career. It's all about what the client wants.
I think such small differences in mixing volumes are petty. I don't mix with the sentiment of "if this gets any louder than -15db rms it won't sound good" because in the end, I'm going to squash the thing so my less audio inclined audience won't dismiss my hard work as "unprofessional" because it's quieter. It's sad but true.
I think such small differences in mixing volumes are petty. I don't mix with the sentiment of "if this gets any louder than -15db rms it won't sound good" because in the end, I'm going to squash the thing so my less audio inclined audience won't dismiss my hard work as "unprofessional" because it's quieter. It's sad but true.
M
Markus V
New member
Yeah, it's a sad fact but a true one as well... sadly the general public regards quiet records as unprofessional. For example, a friend of mine decided to get his album mastered at Cutting Room, but asked them not to make a smashed "loud" master. They've actually received some compliments on their sound, but also some people have told them to get their record professionally mastered (which they in fact have done). It's amazing how people nowadays don't seem to know that they can adjust levels on their playback systems. Oh how I sometimes envy the mastering engineers of the past (while they didn't have all the "toys" we have, they didn't need to put up with these loudness wars).FattMusiek said:
therage!
Wicked Machine
FattMusiek said:
I'm starting to wonder about this myself if you are "not" going to get it mastered, besides a redbook burn for duplication. I'd be interested in knowing what Iron Maiden has done with their mixing since they are not sending their latest record out for mastering. I've done some pretty hot mixes that end up surprisingly loud with no "mastering" done. I don't mean loudness wars loud..
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
But I see a big disconnect there that doesn't take that much to rectify.FattMusiek said:
What does the client want? They want their music to get out, to be popular. That's all they want. They don't really want it to be loud.
They just think that it has to be be loud to get popular. It's our jobs as engineers to provide them with the professional position that that is a bucket of hogwash (to use technical engineering terms
.) If they are just too dense or brainwashed to understand that, then take their daddy's money and squash the shit out of their recordings because those boys aren't going anywhere anyway.But for every one client that understands the reality of the situation when explained, and that the whole mythology behind the RMS wars is just a not-so-fashonable fashon trend that'll disappear for a while in much the same way and time that the 70's polyester leisure suit did, that's one more client with a listenable product that people will actually want to listen to that'll also be one more nail in the RMS coffin.
G.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
No, it's the artists and the labels that are in on that. End users are normally smart enough to know how to work the volume knob. And few that I know of mind doing so.
If anything, the opposite is true for anyone who actually enjoys listening to quality recordings - It's the recordings that are *too loud* that are a pain because you have to keep turning everything down - yet the distortion inherent to the recording is *still there* and can't be avoided at *any* level.
LeeRosario
New member
FattMusiek said:
I have a hard time understanding where these stats come from?
Reggie
PutsTheLotionOnItsSkin
I'm mixing 3 songs for a "level savvy" musician right now. His required RMS: -10.
But yeah, there are a lot of people--industry and non industry-- who have come to equate loudness with quality.
"Wow, this CD hits even harder than the last CD I had in there! Awesome Kewlness!
"
Or
"This CD is way quieter than my Creed CD. It is weak.
"
But yeah, there are a lot of people--industry and non industry-- who have come to equate loudness with quality.
"Wow, this CD hits even harder than the last CD I had in there! Awesome Kewlness!
" Or
"This CD is way quieter than my Creed CD. It is weak.
"
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Ah, good. So he arranged, performed and tracked his songs purposely so that they'd have the proper (extremely thick) density to naturally and properly come out at -10 in the mastering stage.Reggie said:
...Oh, he didn't? He says it's all in the mastering? He is saavy of nothing.
G.
RedStone
Active member
SouthSIDE Glen said:
lololololololololol