more volume on CD

[dvolume]

I record my electric guitar directly into my Zoom MRS-802b digital recorder. All the levels are as high as I can get them without clipping.

The Zoom has a built in Cd burner. When I burn a CD from my master track, the volume is too quiet. If I play the CD in my car (or any system), I have to turn the volume way up. Then when I eject the CD and the radio comes on again, it hurts my ears, it's so loud.

How do I get more volume onto my CD's? Or am I stuck with a factory preset recording level?

Thanks,
Richard

 

[Ford Van]

If you want the volume of big boy recordings, you will have to use some gear a bit better than the Zoom to achieve it.

Having not heard your audio, I have no clue where to start advising you.

 

[Creamyapples1]

I've noticed the same in some of my recordings, though I use a bit more than a zoom thing-a-ma-jig. I'm satisfied with my clearity and my overall sounds, but bumping the levels a bit on mix down without clipping would be swell.

 

[Carter]

You need a compressor!

 

[Ford Van]

You will need to use a limiter over the mix to achieve higher levels.

The most popular limiter for raising RMS levels is the Waves "L" series. Currently, at the L3 which can be a multiband or broadband limiter.

 

[Farview]

The volume comes from mastering. It is a separate process from mixing. You could try to compress the individual instruments during the mix, that can help too.
The peak volume is what you are looking at on the meter, but we don't perceive peak level as volume. The average level of a mix is what we perceive as volume. You need to use compression to lower the dynamic range of the individual instruments that are causing the peaks.

 

[LeeRosario]

I can't understand why people have become so obsessed with volume?


Professionally speaking, you get the volume at the mastering stage. It's at that point that a mastering engineer can raise the volume and still make the material somewhat acceptable to the ears.

And not just any mastering engineer, but a capable one. Don't assume to reach for the L3 first, cause it's not a magic wand. There are more acceptable ways of achieving percevied loudness.

 

[Ford Van]

The L3 pretty much IS a magic wand for increasing perceived loudness.

He didn't say he wants to do anything than get more volume. Simply, that is what a limiter does, and few can approach how well the L3 does it!

Once he get's it louder, he will have other questions. Let it ride until then.

Who needs ME's for something that was tracked/mixed on a cheap ass Zoom unit? It is OBVIOUS that he is just making some demo's. He isn't trying to pawn his demo to record labels, thus, paying $50-250 an hour for mastering makes NO SENSE!

 

[LeeRosario]

The L3 pretty much IS a magic wand for increasing perceived loudness.

He didn't say he wants to do anything than get more volume. Simply, that is what a limiter does, and few can approach how well the L3 does it!

Once he get's it louder, he will have other questions. Let it ride until then.

Who needs ME's for something that was tracked/mixed on a cheap ass Zoom unit? It is OBVIOUS that he is just making some demo's. He isn't trying to pawn his demo to record labels, thus, paying $50-250 an hour for mastering makes NO SENSE!

he still diserves to know all his options. I think he diserves that, don't you think?

I know exactly what both versions of the L3 does to audio. They are simply tools.

so if he wants to "pay" the 1300+ clams for that set, then by all means have at it.

Of course after losing all that money, he would realized he could of spent it on very reasonably priced mastering engineer. Plus, he would of learned a thing or two after the fact.

In fact, I hear there are a few very capable ones in these forums.

The point I'm simply trying to make is, in this age, people need to be smarter than an L3.

 

[Robert D]

The L3 pretty much IS a magic wand for increasing perceived loudness.

He didn't say he wants to do anything than get more volume. Simply, that is what a limiter does, and few can approach how well the L3 does it!

Once he get's it louder, he will have other questions. Let it ride until then.

Who needs ME's for something that was tracked/mixed on a cheap ass Zoom unit? It is OBVIOUS that he is just making some demo's. He isn't trying to pawn his demo to record labels, thus, paying $50-250 an hour for mastering makes NO SENSE!

Awe, you beat me to it. Right, obviously this isn't someone who needs a mastering engineer at the moment, and maybe isn't flush with cash to spend on the overpriced Waves plugs, though I agree the L3 is as good as it gets for a nearly fool proof maximizer. A pretty darn good freebie is the Digital Fishphones "Endorphin".
Of course, all of these are VST plugs that need a host, and he's recording in a standalone box, so I think none of this is much help.

-RD

 

[kid klash]

If you've got access to a PC, pick up a copy of Sound Forge Audio Studio ($40-$70). Extract each song from your CD into Sound Forge, one song at a time, and use the "Normalize" function until your songs are loud enough for you. This is a function/feature that takes some getting used to, because if you overdo it, the song is gonna sound like crap. Anyway, once you've got the song as loud as you want it, save it. Do all the songs the same way, then burn a new CD (Sound Forge includes CD burning software) with your new files, and you're good to go.

 

[Ford Van]

Yeah, I always forget about the cost of Waves arguement.

Fine.

Voxengo's Elephant is a wonderful altenative to the L3, and it is FAR less than a competent ME, and you OWN it for as many projects that you don't want to overpay those ME's.

Again, it just doesn't make any sense to pay a ME for home demo's.

There MIGHT be some competent ME's floating around these parts, but, for most of your, their services would be a waste of your money for a variety of reasons.

The ONLY time I recommend that a customer pay a high dollar ME is when it is some kind of "label" release (but not always! I have mastered quite a few "label" releases the day after finishing mixing....for far less than half what the decent ME's around here charge), or if you have a strong release that has label higher up's considering you for distribution deals, or, if you are a GOOD selling local artist with a discriminating fan base.

Otherwise, paying an ME is a waste of money.

Truthfully, for what many ME's cost, versus the end result, on a lot of stuff, their price just isn't worth the improve gain.

I rather see a guy stab away at mastering themselves, see that it really IS GIGO, and learn something from the process. You can learn a lot about mixing by trying to master your songs, just like you learning a lot about tracking by attempting to mix your tracks, and you learn a LOT about playing from tracking.

This IS homerecording.com by gawd!

 

[LeeRosario]

Well that's a perfectly legit argument, but Im trying to encourage something a little more than personal experimentation.

I'm well aware that not everyone can have or work at a high end studio or afford elaborate mastering, but interaction with a physical body is always important.

Eventually, the L3 won't be the solution to the problem and if dvolume is serious about growing in his music, he's going to have to see some of what the world has to offer.


You're not just paying for a service, you're also paying to learn what you can do to better set up your material for success.

And that is especially true now, when everyone plus my grandmother knows how to use Pro Tools. I wouldn't want the extent of his imagination to end at a plug-in.

I've seen it a million times and it's just very unfortunate.


Of course, my argument dosn't mean anything if the intention is only for hobby purposes.

 

[gordone]

I'd take the $1000 and upgrade my RECORDING rig, rather than use it to send poorly recorded tracks to a ME (or to buy L3)

 

[mishagolin]

I'd take the $1000 and upgrade my RECORDING rig, rather than use it to send poorly recorded tracks to a ME (or to buy L3)

exactly!

are we all forgetting that recording is at least a 4 step process?

1: playing
2: tracking
3: mixing
4: mastering

i don't think the best decision would be the L3 or an ME. I think a far more productive tool would be to spend some time reading about tracking and mixing. read about the use of a compressor. there are quite a few mixing techniques that will help the overall "volume" of his mix without costing so much. I also don't like the idea of the L3 because it can easily become misused and actually hurt the sound of the mix.

if he finds that he is getting all he can out of the Zoom then i would suggest moving to a different interface with more options.

my advice would be to improve the mixing skills. read, practice and listen. all of these will help more in the long run than an L3

 

[Ford Van]

You know, there is this REALLY annoying habit at homerecording.com to tell people to just do something else rather than try "mastering".

I don't get it. You know how I got into mastering? (yes, I have some mastering credits, and some very happy customers to my name). I got into because:

1 - The couple of local guys I tried were very expensive, and I found that I could get at least 90% of their results on my own with plugins I already had.

2 - Clients couldn't afford the rates these guys were charging for results that weren't that much better than what I could get for at least half as much!

Was I "good" at it at first? No, not particularly. So, I experimented a LOT and learned how to do it better with my limited gear. I DID get better, and still get the call to master bands CD's here and there. Good for me. I ain't trying to brag, just to illustrate what I was doing.

There is NOTHING WRONG WITH LEARNING HOW TO ATTEMPT MASTERING ON YOUR OWN, if even just for experimenting with the process.

ANY LEARNING of ANY STAGE of the production process is "productive"! I learned a LOT about mixing from mastering!

I learned that when I am trying to achieve something higher than -10rms on a mix in mastering that I need to keep things like distorted guitars and vocals down in the mix. I learned that I should probably thin out low end instruments a bit more than I had been.

I learned LOT'S about mixing from mastering! Stuff I wouldn't have learned unless I TRIED MASTERING>

If you don't know how to achieve decent results in mastering, no crime there. But just because you don't have decent skills at it, don't go shoving the rather rediculous advise for everybody else to just not work at it!

SHARE INFO people!

If you don't have anything to share, move along to another thread. There are plenty of questions about mixing, tracking, playing to go around.

Or maybe ask your own question about mastering.

It is rediculous to keep telling people that they shouldn't worry about "mastering" for whatever reasons you give. If we follow that logic, maybe you shouldn't worry about learning how to use eq, because, well, you should just learn how to move your mic around!

Not everybody is looking for the "purist" approach to everything. Some people just need to solve a problem! HELP THEM SOLVE IT OR SHUTUP! This guy asked a good question about something that he needs to get done, which is making his mixes louder before burning to CD.

Let's assume that I am a pretty good tracking/mixing engineer (hell, I KNOW I am, and a trip to my mp3 page will show you that!) and I ask the same question. Are you guys just going to tell me to send it to a ME, or to go read about mixing, or to place my mics differently?

:rolleyes

*edited to fix some spelin' arors.

 

[Creamyapples1]

While I agree that reading guides/manuals, etc is a very good practice, and while I also agree that playing around to find out what suits YOUR needs is great practice. The best practice is conversing with your peers, swapping ideas, and getting great insight on what other people are doing, and the results then taking the accumulated information and applying it towards achieving "your" sound, goal, whatever. I don't need to be told to read the manual, or to go read Roscoe's Guide to being the pimpsauce Home Recording Guru. I've already (and still do) read damn near everything I can get my hands on, but I still WANT to talk to other people about stuff, listen to their ideas, and build off of all of it.


Edit - Which is why I asked Mr. Ford to reply to a thread I made about connections (which is still unresolved ) I've got a decent grasp (I like to think) on what's going on, but asking questions and hearing answers from people who have greater knowledge on a particular subject kinda ties it all together (for me anyway)

They should start fining people for replying with "you need <insert expensive piece of gear here>" and "go read <insert audio god website here>"

 

[scrubs]

If you aren't ready to spring for the L3, there are some decent free limiting plugins to use for home "loudifying." You'll obviously have to load your tunes onto a computer to use them:

Kjaerhus Classic Master Limiter - Probably the best free limiter and easy to use (just one knob). Will get ugly if you push it too far, but you can definitely loudify stuff with it.

Beta Bugs W1 Limiter - A little dirtier than the Classic Limiter, which may be fine for distorted guitar parts.

C3 Multiband Compressor - Use it to tame some peaks before squishing it with the limiter.

Now, all of these devices will "distort" your sound and compromise quality to some degree, but if loud is what you are looking for, they'll do it.

 

[LeeRosario]

haha...well all good posts.


I'm not going to drag this any further. Cheers

 

[Ford Van]

Now, all of these devices will "distort" your sound and compromise quality to some degree, but if loud is what you are looking for, they'll do it.

Okay, I like this kind of talk! The "will distort' comment is pretty interesting, so I played around.

Here is my source track.

Okay, here is 3 versions. One had the L3 with the threshold at -6, one used Wavelab's "Gain Change" fuction to turn it up 6dB, and one used the Kjarrhus Limiter with the threshold at -6. I did the worst case scenario, and applied all processing to a 16 bit file! No dither to muddy the waters so to speak!

1
2
3

I left them as .wav files. mp3 would have done funny stuff.

Since just about any 32 bit float software mixer by a reputable company can probably handle at least +6dB over 0dbdfs, the way to compare these is to take the original file, turn it up 6dB on your software mixer, but leave the other three files a unity.

So, comparing the three to the original un-altered file, which process was which? I SHOULD be obvious the difference between the L3 and the Classic Limiter, and certainly, you should be able to totally hear which file just had the gain changed +6dB, which in Wavelab meters showed the file going +3.5dB above full scale. You won't see that on playback because the metering after saving the file shows it just reaches 0dbfs (probably because Wavelab works with it internally as a 32bit float file after the gain change is made, but after saving, it is TRUELY a 16 bit file, thus, won't show anything above dfs.)

So, your mission, if you choose to substanitate your claim about "distort" is to tell me which is which.

The L3 is considered just about the best limiting there is, and the Classic Limiter is Free! The $1000 difference in price should be OBVIOUS I would think.

Anyway, both achieved a fairly respectable -12dB rms. This was a mix right off a console to a DAT that was digitally transferred into the computer. No eq, or anything else was applied before any of the processing.

I guess I also wanted to point out how EASY it was to "make my mix" louder without any funny stuff going on.

Fun stuff.