mix volume

Okay, that's fine about iPods, just turn up the volume. The trouble is with radio airplay. If your tune is quieter than the tunes surrounding it, it *will* seem lesser than them. That's happened to me. I heard a tune of mine buried between two other tunes on a broadcast, and mine was softer. It really does make less of an impression that way. When the next tune comes in louder it's like "and now back to our regular programming".

You really, really do not want your tunes softer than the ones around it. There is an artful way of doing that with quality, and there is a hack way of doing it that sounds ugly. But the final volume as compared to other tunes being released around the same time *does* need to be considered.
 
SonicAlbert said:
The trouble is with radio airplay. If your tune is quieter than the tunes surrounding it, it *will* seem lesser than them.
Click to expand...
This is true. But a few words of caution I think need to be thrown in with that as well.

1. One needs to remember if mastering for radio that the station more often than not adds their own level of compression to it between their board and the transmitter as well. Trying to compress a WAV file so that it sounds "radio ready" - i.e. so that it sounds like the stuff on the radio - will also more often than not be overcompressing it in preparation for radio play.

2. You're right that the volume can be brought up "tastefully". I don't think that any of us are really arguing anything close to the idea that mixes should necessarily be left raw on the volume scale. Mastering the volume is not entirely unlike mixing in the the content - i.e. the song itself - should dictate the maximum volume, not some arbitrary number or volume goal. The only real debate, I believe, is just where one believes the critical point is in the tradeoff between volume and dynamic quality. I personally (very strongly) believe that once the dynamic *quality* of the song starts being affected, that one should push the volume no further. Others argue that it's reasonable to sacrifice some quality in the name of volume. No suprise that I don't find anything reasonable behind that at all, myself ;) . It's all about the content in my school.

3. Quite frankly, Al, if there was that much of an audible difference at broadcast, it sounds to me like perhaps the DJ was phoning it in. The station does not want that to happen any more than you do; they view uneven track-to-track volumes in their program content - excluding commercials - as being bad form and bad for business. Unless you mix was so far off (which, knowing you and your quality capabilities, I find extremely difficult to believe), they should be pre-cuing your stuff and making adjustments at their board to keep such discrepencies to a minimum...unless of course you didn't slip enough of the white pony into the jewel case ;) (80% just kidding on that last bit :p .)

G.
 
If anyone's heard Mogwai, you know how ready you have to be to grab the volume knob. It's part of their sound. Soft subtle passages then wild panning white noise or overdrive kicking in.

Perhaps counter to the spirit of enjoying music, I wish my little MP3 player had a limiter on it. It's really annoying when using it in the gym to be deafened by 1 song and then have to turn the next 1 up so it's not drowned out by the rowing machine.
 
You may want to try some slight amount of parallel compression on some of the tracks
Click to expand...

I find this is one of the only ways for me to get drums to sit right in a mix, after being mastered; It is my understanding though that NY compression isn't widely used that much anymore, and engineers are tending to compress the individual drums, as opposed to the whole kit...I like the way NY comp brings the presence out, and tightens up the low end of a drum mix.
 
blueroommusic said:
I find this is one of the only ways for me to get drums to sit right in a mix, after being mastered; It is my understanding though that NY compression isn't widely used that much anymore, and engineers are tending to compress the individual drums, as opposed to the whole kit...I like the way NY comp brings the presence out, and tightens up the low end of a drum mix.
Click to expand...

Many use both, comps on individual tracks to even things out, parallel comp to beef things up.
 
Blueroom & 'house,

A small point I always need ironed out in my head:

Is the only difference between "NY compression" and "Motown compression" the fact that it is called "NY" when used on the rhythm section and "Motown" when used on vocals? Or am I missing something and way off (as usual with such wrinkles in my brain :p )?

G.
 
I always thought "NY" compression referred to parallel compression on the rhythm tracks.

The problems with having too much dynamic range on tracks intended for the public is not just radio airplay. A great test is to play your tracks in a busy restaurant if possible. I've done this a number of times.

As the music has a quiet moment it will literally disappear under the sounds of people talking and hubbub of the room. It will be as if it is not there. Then as the music swells you will once again be able to hear it. This is really bad, and the same thing will happen if you are listening to the tracks in a car or any other noisy environment.

The fact is, not that many people sit in front of their stereos in a quiet setting and focus in solely on the music. Yes, that is still the way music gets listened to, but I think many more people listen as they are doing other things, or are in public places.

Same goes for music on an airplane. Loud jet engines, the rushing of air across the airframe, people talking. Too much dynamic range and the music disappears in the soft sections.

For some kinds of music this creates real issues when mastering the album. You want to retain the dynamic range for the sake of the music but at the same time keep the range tight enough that the music will play back well in many different settings. It can really be a quandry.
 
Is the only difference between "NY compression" and "Motown compression" the fact that it is called "NY" when used on the rhythm section and "Motown" when used on vocals? Or am I missing something and way off (as usual with such wrinkles in my brain )?
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with Motown compression, but NY compression is only used on rhythm tracks as far as I know...

Masteringhouse: I usually do compress the individual elements of the drums at least a little bit, before parallel compressing... Unfortunately we live in a world where we as engineers (especially those of us doing rock) have to compress the living shit out of everything...

the project that I'm working on right now is extremely odd, because the style of the music is a mesh between hard rock, metal and jazz...the drummer was phenomenal and a very atmospheric & dynamic player...the problem lies in the fact that he's playing a very jazz influenced style, which I normally would not compress very much, as to let the dynamics breath; but the guitar work is VERY heavy and distorted, so the music won't be hard hitting unless I compress the drums...so far I think I'm getting the mix to a happy medium between the two, it has just been an odd project...but fun. :D
 
SonicAlbert said:
I always thought "NY" compression referred to parallel compression on the rhythm tracks.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And I thought "Motown compression" referred to parallel compression used on vocals. I'm just wondering if there's really a difference in the "type" of parallel compression between the two other than the type of track to which it's applied?

SonicAlbert said:
The problems with having too much dynamic range on tracks intended for the public is not just radio airplay. A great test is to play your tracks in a busy restaurant if possible. I've done this a number of times.

As the music has a quiet moment it will literally disappear under the sounds of people talking and hubbub of the room. It will be as if it is not there. Then as the music swells you will once again be able to hear it. This is really bad, and the same thing will happen if you are listening to the tracks in a car or any other noisy environment.

The fact is, not that many people sit in front of their stereos in a quiet setting and focus in solely on the music. Yes, that is still the way music gets listened to, but I think many more people listen as they are doing other things, or are in public places.
Click to expand...
That brings up a good and important point, Al. I think it comes down to the content.

Is a painter painting a Rembrandt or a Warhol? A typical Rembrandt just won't look right hanging in a room lit mostly by florescent light or in a room where the lighting is not otherwise adequate to bring out the dynamics of the lighting in the painting, whereas a Warhol will pretty much work as desired in just about any setting. Should Rembrandt alter his painting technique so that his paintings can look good hanging in someone's garage as well as in the Louvre? Probably not.

Is a graphic artist or photo processor making a large format print of an Ansel Adams exposure or is he or she making a large format print of a family snapshot for a billboard advertisment? The Adams print should be made to preserve the full dynamics of his original development and to failthfully bring out the clarity and detail of the exposure. The advertising print should worry less about color balance and contrasting detail and instead focus upon maximum visibility and readability in the broadest range of conditions.

Is the engineer mastering the 1812 Overture or the newest American Idol single? Should the Overture recording be made to sound right at the local Olive Garden? Probably not. Should the Idol recording be made to sound best to an audiophile? Also probably not.

It boils down to both content and purpose, but mostly to content. "The Dark Side Of The Moon" sounds horrible in a restaruant or in the grocery store, and is even severly limited in FM radio broadcast. And most contemporary Top 40 sounds like crap on anything with decently failthful reproduction in a meaningful environment.

Should Alan Parsons have comprimised his production stylings on DSotM in order to sound good on Big 10 Summer Gold AM radio back in the early '70s? I think we all know the consensus negative answer to that one :). OTOH, should the latest Idol single be made to sound more sonically appealing on anything more than an iPod? It's probably not worth the money because that's equally and mistakenly playing to the wrong marketplace.

G.
 
Last edited:
nessbass said:
@Glen: All I know of a motown technique comes from this page:

http://www.recordinginstitute.com/R2KREQ/excomp.htm
Click to expand...
Ha, OK, some detail. Thanks for the link :).

From that page:

Lawrence Horn came up with a brilliant idea. He took the vocal and split the signal so that it when to 2 console channels. Before the vocal signal went to the second channel, it went through a compressor. Now he had two channels of the vocal - one compressed and one uncompressed. On the uncompressed vocal he added very little with the equalizer and he added the reverb. On the compressed channel, he compressed the h**l out of it and added a ton of high-frequency equalization. What he would do is bring up the "natural" channel to full level to get the basic natural sound on the vocal. On the other compressed and equalized channel, he brought this up just enough to add excitement and presence to the vocal sound
Click to expand...
If I'm reading that right, he is basically talking about parallel compression, but they added a particular recipe of processing "spice" to it as well.

G.
 
very often when I use NY compression, I will put an EQ on the compression bus usually boosting the highs a bit, and sometimes in the 250-500 Hz range, to make the snare beef up a bit.
 
I fail to see the distinction, I'm sure the good folks in NY use EQ in the compressed or uncompressed track. It's all parallel compression to me.

Maybe I should add a side-chain to the compressor and call it "Philly compression"?
 
masteringhouse said:
Maybe I should add a side-chain to the compressor and call it "Philly compression"?
Click to expand...
Don't forget to add the grilled onions and peppers :D.

Of course we already have "Chicago compression" for loud vocals, but that usually involves sticking the loudmouth in the trunk of a car and putting the car into a compactor at the local Teamster's junkyard...

G.
 
I fail to see the distinction, I'm sure the good folks in NY use EQ in the compressed or uncompressed track. It's all parallel compression to me.
Click to expand...

agreed...it is all the same...I guess the distinction lies in the different decades, and the different styles of music both were used for...

hey southside...know where I can get some of that good ole' "Chicago compression" down here in Florida? I've got some clients that could stand to take a look at the inside of a trunk.... :mad:
 
blueroommusic said:
hey southside...know where I can get some of that good ole' "Chicago compression" down here in Florida? I've got some clients that could stand to take a look at the inside of a trunk.... :mad:
Click to expand...
As you have shown your respect for my family and myself, I'd be glad to send Vinny and Moose down to help your clients find their wallets. I ask nothing in return. But one day I may need a favor from you...and I don't mean help getting these damn cotton balls out that somebdy stuffed inside my cheeks.

:D

masteringhouse said:
Or the Cheez Whiz (common ingredient on the Philly steak).
Click to expand...
Yeah, when I first learned on my first trip out to Delaware - where a friend of mine moved - for the first time a few years ago (including stops in Philly) that real cheesesteaks used Cheez Whiz, it blew my mind. We grew up here in ChiTown eating and beleiving "Philly Steaks" were made with Mozzerella cheese, which is how they're done here. They're still quite good, but I'm sure you'd look on those the way we look that the awful artifical versions of "Chicago-style pizzas" made anywhere outside of Chicago :).

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top