Need Help ... Mixing/Mastering for Radio Air-Play vs Normal Listening

[tuskiso]

Should recordings be mastered the same for Radio Air-play as they are for normal play (home stereo, car stereo, MP3, etc)........?
Thanks for constructive feedback in advance..........

 

[Dogbreath]

hmm..never really thought about it but I'd say Yeah, mastered the same cuz when it goes to radio, they put their own compressor on the signal anyway.

I could be wrong but I don't see why they'd be different. Seems to me like you're mixing/mastering to be able to play nicely with all the mediums ya can, right? Be it in a home stereo or on the radio, as long as it translates.

otoh...maybe we'll get some folks with some savvy in here to let us both know.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

If you can leave more dynamics in your master, it will sound better on the radio.

The radio adds a lot of compression to everything that's played. If your recording already is flat lining from over limiting it will only get more squished. Theres nowhere to go. The kick and snare will disappear.

 

[Massive Master]

Should recordings be mastered the same for Radio Air-play as they are for normal play (home stereo, car stereo, MP3, etc)........?

*Should* is the operative word there. Yes, they *should* be the same.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

You can't worry about the playback medium; otherwise, you'd have to make a radio mix, a CD mix, an MP3 mix, a boom box mix, a clock radio mix, a Ford/Bose car stereo mix, a Chevy/Delco car stereo mix, a mix for warm, high-humidity days and another one for cold, dry days, one for headbanger ear preferences and one for orchestral ear preferences, blablablah, etc, and so forth.

IMHO, you should mix and master your stuff to sound the way you want it to sound. Period. If you've done a proper job, any problems heard in playback will be shortcomings of the playback medium and not of the translatability of your mix.

There are only two exceptions I can think of. The first is editing a 3-minute version of your 17-minute wank to fit a top-40 format.

The second is if you're one of those who mistakenly believes that mo' louda' is mo' betta' and over-limits and over-compresses their mixes, then you may have some problems when you get to the radio because of the even extra compression they add. But if you create a mix to sound good and not to sound loud, the way God intended it, then you shouldn't have radio issues.

G.

 

[ralpheo]

I used to get upset when I had a bunch of songs that their levels were all over the place. My wife would want to hand cd's out to anybody she thought had juice in the industry and I say, "No! These are not finished!" She'd say, "They just need to be mastered, but I want people to hear what we've been doing."
So, I go and eq and squash the shit out of them to get the levels all the same...and they sound horrible. So she still hands them out and plays them for people and I'm mortified!
Last year, we went to a conference that we go to every year in August. I got some songs from a couple of people. They sounded good but, not done, not great. I took them into a wave editor just to see what I was missing in my stuff. Most of them were just huge blocks of spikes, with no headroom left on them.
I think, "I can do this! This is easy!" Ha! Couldn't be more wrong! Oh they sound ok, but not something I want for posterity. And no, she is not handing out these things again this year!
John Scrip has a line in a post on this site to the effect:"You should hear what...recordings sound like when they're at the level they "want" to be at."
So true.
I've started mixing dry. with only the natural reverb in my studio, which is pretty cool, because I didn't know it was there until I took all the other bullshit out. I still use effects, plugins and sidechaining, but only insofar as getting my acoustic tone or "that sound" from my electric or bass. And I have to have what I need in sound to keep the inspiration thing going. But when I play it back, I take bus effects out and put them back in to see if I need to just tweak a midi pattern, punch in a fill, or if I need to do the whole part over again.
But now I have come to the conclusion that while my midi lines and my mixes of my ambient and self-indulgent stuff are good, the home studio process is not right for the stuff that my wife and I are doing together. Great for sketching out the ideas and a good few of the tracks we've sequenced and recorded here may even wind up in the final product, we're going to go into the studio.
She said, "I want something that is representative of what I do. Can I reproduce it on stage?" (She plays acoustic, often solo.)
I said, "I want the best possible rendition of your music. If you get it right, the musicians will come to you."

Ok, I rambled there for a bit. Sorry.

 

[miroslav]

I used to get upset when I had a bunch of songs that their levels were all over the place. My wife would want to hand cd's out to anybody she thought had juice in the industry and I say, "No! These are not finished!" She'd say, "They just need to be mastered, but I want people to hear what we've been doing."

There was an article I read not too long ago (somewhere)…and the author was talking about how it’s important not to get too hung up about polishing every aspect of your recordings, and that if you spend 20 minutes listening to radio play, even with everything getting pumped up in level, you will still notice that every song has a different EQ, quality and flavor. IOW…it’s OK if your stuff has its own flavor.

That said, I do spend a lot of time (probably too much) trying to squeeze the best sound I can get out of my own recordings, but I also look at my efforts as a great learning experience…finding out just how far I can go with what I have at hand in my studio.

I’ve been experimenting with different mastering approaches, and spent a few months auditioning different setups…trying out different levels, EQ, etc..etc…and actually this weekend I finally settled on the best "mastering" approach for my studio rig and my music. And I put qoutations around mastering becuase I don't want to imply that I am a mastering engineer with a proper mastering studio, but I also do think that sometimes, we can make better decisions for our own music...assuming we have a bit of knowledge and somewhat decent equipment to apply it with.

I don’t mean to insult any of the mastering engineers, but I tried sending out a couple of things to commercial mastering houses for test purposes awhile back, and while they didn’t come back sounding “bad”…they did come back sounding rather predictable and typical of how many people master these days.
The music was quite louder than what I sent out, and had a lot of punch…but it was also somewhat edgy, and the low end was doing something weird…it seemed a bit disconnected from everything else. When I pulled the mastered files into my DAW...it was quickly obvious what was going on...with all the peaks flat-topped to the max!
Mind you…apart from the very obvious loudness increase, the other issues were more subtle, though still noticable, and to my ears they were pretty annoying compared to my original mixes which I already had lived with for quite awhile.
Could the songs have been left alone mastered that way and would they “fit in” with a lot of other stuff mastered these days…absolutely!
However, I decided to see if I could do better, so like I said, I spent some time trying out different approaches, and I think I found a good working SOP (for my music, in my studio).

Basically…since I tend to only use a DAW for cut/paste editing…and then mix back out through an analog console using outboard processing, I decided to take my stereo mix and mastering…back to tape, along with a good EQ across deck's stereo output which let me fine-tune what I had coming back off the tape…and then I recorded that tape output back into the DAW at 24/88.2.
Once back in the DAW, the rather few rogue peaks that got by the tape deck, I then manually adjust on a peak-by-peak basis.
I use no limiting anywhere.

I’m able to raise the final level quite substantially, while also shaping the global EQ to bring it more into the realm of a decent commercial product. I think the final results have a better smoothness and cohesive quality, while still maintaining dynamics, even with the huge level boost.
It reminds me of good vinyl recordings…when we use to just crank up the volume on the old Hi-Fi stereo system!
I’m sure other people could get other results, using other equipment and other approaches, but then we are back to what I mentioned above, about not worrying if my music doesn’t sound exactly like something else. I think any typical listener will always “adjust their ears” to whatever is coming from the radio…and when you consider that we are ensconced with Lo-Fi music all around us these days…well, there’s no need to be overly critical about your own efforts.

I should have my final album mixes posted on my website in the coming weeks (right now I just have a couple of early, pre-mastered mixes on there).

So I guess my answer is to just mix/master the way you think it should sound…and let the radio play take care of itself.

Ooooh…I guess I rambled on a bit long too…


miroslav

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Ooooh…I guess I rambled on a bit long too…

I don't think so; I think that was an excellent explanation and post.

I'm sorry about your experience with some "mastering houses" out there. May I suggest that - assuming they were truly qualified engineers, but working in an environment where they are "mass producing" mastering jobs lie an assembly line mastering facility - that they may have just assumed you wanted the same drek pancakes everybody else wants these days; i.e. to be as loud as the next guy. If you were to work on a more personal scale with a good mastering engineer that works by the job, and explained to them that you didn't want a 21st century pancake, that the results could have been a lot better.

G.

 

[LeeRosario]

Bob Katz has a perfect article on radio ready. The end all be all I call it.

In fact, I'm gonna read to you verbatim out of my edition of Bob's book. At the end, I'll suggest what you can do as a *mix engineer* to prep a song for radio.

here are the goods.

selected quotes:

"The Truth about Radio Ready"

Every radio uses a transmission processor in front of it's transmission signal. It's most important function is to control the peak modulation of the transmitter to the legal requirements of the regulatory bod in each stations nation.Very few stations use a simple limiter, but rather a complex chain to produce a seemingly louder signal

In other words, it'd be good to find out what the specs are within your country. (In the U.S. regulated by the FCC I would imagine)

A typical processing chain in a radio signal is as follows:

Phase rotator, AGC, Stereo Enhancement, Equalization, Multiband Compression/Limiting, Pre-Emphasis, HF Limiting and Clipping.

Phase Rotator: A chain of Allpass filters (typically four poles, all at 200hz). It's purpose is to make wave forms more symmetrical and consistent for radio listening.

Simply put, from my understanding, it's designed to seek out the center channel stuff (like voices) and put them right there in your face for radio play. No distortion and it's kind of an added bonus. The trade off is that you loose some transparency in the mix. But it was accepted one.

The AGC, short for Automatic Gain Control, is an averaging system within the chain. By recording studio standards, this AGC is required to operate over a wide dynamic range. (About 25 db).

The AGC compensates in level errors the live sound engineer might and will make during any specific broadcast. This is what keeps radio stations loud over a length of time. AGC operate slowly to prevent things like bass pumping. AGCs are always gated in component processors.

So in essence, the AGC is kind of like a slow referee. You tell him you wanna play something too soft, he says "nope, I'm bringing it up". You wanna play something too loud, "he says, nope...gotta sound like everyone else. I'm bringing you to their level".

He works on averages. He doesn't discriminate and he works for the set standards, not for any one person.

Stereo Enhancement is used by some, but not all radio stations. This happens typically after the AGC. Overdone, it can remix the song.

When mixing for radio, stick to the dry side of things. because of the nature of stereo enhancement can bring this out excessively.

The only universal standard is the strict need for mono compatibility, obviously for broadcast done on mono stations. FM is frequently receieved in mono.

A note. It's my understanding that the "stereofication" process used by AM radio stations involves M/S Stereo processing. Basically this means anything thats not present in your center channel is summed up to the center and shoved to the back. So in other words, if you mix a rock song like anyone normally would, you'd expect your guitars to get lowered dramatically while the vocals, kick and snare (anything panned centered) to be most dominant in that mix.

In FM, there alot of situations where people have to still listen in mono. Any department store or major building that carries those recessed ceiling speakers are more than likely giving you a mono signal. Super markets, gyms, legal buildings, JC Penny, doesn't matter, it's in mono. So that's kind of a big deal.

**EQ and Multiband Compression are pretty self explanatory. This is dependent on the radio stations tastes at this point. For a basic run down on compression or EQ, you can refer to any article on here, as it's discussed extensively.**

Premphasis and HF Limiting. FM Radio is preemphasised at 50 milliseconds or 75 microseconds. Preemphasis is high frequency boost thats 3db up 2.1khz or 3.2khz.

Easy to understand.

Clipping. In most processors, the clipping stage is the primary means of peak limiting. It's to broadcast processor performance. Because of pre-emphasis, simple clipping dosn't work well at all. Instead, you have "Distortion cancled clipping".

Distiortion cancled clipping is a very effective means of peak limiting because if affects only the peaks that actually exceed the clipping threshold and not surrounding material. Also, clipping does not cause pumping.

Some chains might comprise of multiple clipping stages.

So now the question, how do you prep a mix for the radio? Taking all this into account, a quick checklist:

1) Avoid fast digital clipping and limiting.
2)Leave short term envelopes unsquashed
3) Let the broadcast processor do its work.
4) The result will be a just as loud, hypercompressed song, but with more punch, clarity and life.

So in other words, when mixing for this kind of stuff, you really have to go minimal. A radio mix is a completely different beast than an record mix.

This obviously means they are not mastered in the same way either. There is a heavy difference. How that's done, i can't tell you because I'm not a mastering engineer. But I would imagine it involves some type of "radio preview system" to get a feel of what you might get on the radio. Could be a boom box, could be that you have a friend that works as an engineer at a radio station.

It's for this reason engineers are asked by labels to generate radio mixes for singles. Experienced ones know what that means and how to do it.

Chris-Lord Alge is one of the beast premiere "mixing for radio" engineers out there. So research him and his work. Good luck.

 

[tuskiso]

Wow...., although there seem to be differing views, I totally appreciate all the response.....
Thanks everybody.............


PS Just in case any would like to sample some of my projects, they can be found on the E-shop page of my website: www.BrotherTorbertMinistries.org

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

In other words, it'd be good to find out what the specs are within your country. (In the U.S. regulated by the FCC I would imagine)

Yep, this is regulated by the FCC. I won't claim that I know the actual or complete specifications, but my understanding is that the main basis is that they don't want you to exceed 100% signal modulation. Whether that is an absolute or whether it's something like "must not exceed for more than x ms within time period y" I don't know for sure.

But an important point that gets missed here is that there is a lot of latitude *inside* the specs. Through history there have been radio stations (AM and FM) which had engineers who designed proprietary compression, filter and amplifier systems to play with the signal without breaking any of the FCC-imposed limits. These proprietary (and usually company-secret) signal chains were usually designed for one or both of two purposes: to maximize signal transmission footprint size, and to equalize the sound to sound best for their genre, target audience or target receiver type.

One example is very similar to what we see here all the time, and that's AM radio's version of the loudness wars. This is, in fact, pretty much where and when the loudness wars in recorded music first began back in the early 20th century in the "golden age" of radio. The basic idea is that the higher the modulation of an AM signal, the farther the signal can travel and the more listeners you can charge your advertisers for reaching. However, one cannot legally overmodulate the signal**, so the engineers were tasked to raise the average modulation level while keeping it legal. This is almost exactly analogous to what we do with our digital recordings when trying to raise the RMS without clipping. Note that this applies only to amplitude modulated radio signals, the rules and physics are a bit different for frequency modulation.

At the same time, there were some radio stations that were famous for having "that sound", that the exact same recording listened to through the exact same radio simply sounded "better" when transmitted by radio station A than when transmitted by radio station B. this was often not because of the transmission power or range or whatnot, but rather because of the proprietary pre-transmitter processing chain design. Again, kind of analogous to which compressors/limiters/EQs you use to master your recordings can make a big difference in how well the final master will sound. One of the more famous stations in radio history for this was CKLW-AM out of Windsor, Canada (serving Detroit) in the 60s, which had a plywood backplane-mounted "homemade" transmission chain that gave them a sound that made anybody who wanted to get their single out there to get it out on CKLWs playlist however they could, which had a significant hand in that station becoming a gold standard for programming which most other similar-format stations in the country followed behind.

The bottom line of this little history treatise is that the idea of mastering for FCC specifications is a bit of a red herring because there's still plenty of elbow room for variation in sound between various radio stations while still staying within legal spec.

** for anyone who ever noticed and wondered what those percentage numbers along the bottom scale of many VU meters was all about, with 100% being at 0VU, this originated as a way to indicate percentage of maximum AM signal modulation.

G.