Obtaining Louder / Fuller Sounding MixDowns

  • Thread starter Thread starter charon17
  • Start date Start date
C

charon17

New member
Hi I'm an industrial artist (reminicent of bands like Skinny Puppy, EN, Throbbing Gristle, etc.) using my computer as my studio work station. My setup is dirt cheep but I am able to produce decent sounding recordings which I convert to MP3's or burn to CDs with it. I'm using Cool Edit Pro as my sequencer, and have a Yamaha SYG20 sound card. Now I know the sound card isn't fantastic and it could be the root of my problem, however, I also have no money to go out and by one that is more respectable. I want to know how I can increase the volumes of my mix downs perhaps through better mix down techniques, correct use of normalization or compression, etc. Generally my wave forms appear to have massive amplitudes but this never seems to make a difference in terms of obtaining a volume that is more acceptable to industry standards. You can download my music from my homepage (http://www.geocities.com/rigormortis17/) to see what I'm talking about (just get the mp3's btw).

One thing that really confuses me is when I lets say decode a track off a professionally made CD and discover that it's wave form appears much much smaller than the ones I use, yet sounds like it has much more volume and fullness.

I would really appreciate anyone assisting me with these problem or providing me with knowledge about normalization and other volume adjusting techniques.

Thanks!

Charon17
 
Hi, and welcome to the BBS-
I downloaded one of your tunes and opened it in Wavelab - the tune peaks @ 0.0 dB, but as you say, the rest of the signal is very weak. The problem may lie with the original signal recorded, or with the way that you mixdown - watch the meters in Cool Edit while recording/mixing and try to stay as close to 0.0dB as you can without clipping - you may need compression to help get you there, or maybe you just need to boost the signal, dunno -
Tell us how you generally record and mix, perhaps we can spot your error...
 
I have the same problem on my mixes, and I've lately started to use a multi-band compressor to make things better.

I use a Nord Modular multi-band compressor patch if you want to know. I tried a Behringer Ultramizer, but it sucks!
 
My Mix Is Louder Than Your Mix!

Sigh.....
The really cool thing about the increased dynamic range of the new formats is that we don't have to squash the signal to fit into such a limited range.
These compression techniques developed because (in the bad ol' days)the headroom was so bad,so that you HAD to squeeze the signal.Then there is radio compression (ugh!)which squeezes the life and soul out of the music.
Listen to classical music or movie soundtracks to hear what a more artistic use of the available headroom can sound like.
Of course,your particular style of music may demand that "in your face" compression.If so,watch out for audible artifacts called "pumping and breathing" where you can hear the compression clamping down and releasing.Be careful especially with the "sizzle" on cymbals and other high frequency content.

Tom
 
My Technique

I'm not sure if the way I make music will sound funny or strange to any of you, because in all honesty I find it to be a rather strange method myself. However I take the word "industrial" to heart, making music is what I love to do, and I must be "industrious" with what I have in order to do it.

First I should mention how I record with mics. I own a standard peavy mic with an XLR connection which I feed into my crappy ass 20 year old pioneer reciever (via converter - XLR to 1/4" into the "mic" input) to boost the mic signal (I don't own a mixer). From there I use the "phones" out put using a standard patch cord and plug that into my computer with another converter to get from 1/4" to 1/8". This sucks primarily because either I have to hook up a separte monitoring system (my mom's bose stero) (it's hard being a pennyless teen borrowing equipment from this, that and the other person btw :) which is an overall pain in the ass because it requires a lot of set up time and the monitoring sucks (for some reason or another the bose when set up like this produces really tinny and thin sound - go figure!~). I usually only do the monitoring when performing vocals because doing the set up is acctually worth it. Otherwise since I can't listen and whilist feeding information to my computer from the same system which monitors my primary monitoring speakers (the result of doing so produces an incredibly loud bass rumble which will most certainly blow the spearkers). Anyways the end result is fairly good sounding recordings (especially on vocals) not so much on sampled objects (they usually sound very quite, but that's because my mic sucks for such quite sounds), I can always compensate with the royal treatment from cool edit (a series of compression, amplfy, hard limit and eq transforms). The recordinds also have a fairly noisy quality, but once again, I can eliminate this with cooledit. I dont believe with my equipment there is anyway to eliminate the noise from recording with mics.. anyways sorry for that long spell... but it might help...

anyhow :)

When beginning any song, it's most common for me to work on drum loops. I haven't the cash for real drums, or more preferrably V-Drums. However I have found that using samples that I have collected (either from scouring the internet for drum machine test wavs, sampling borrowed drum kits from friends, or sampling everyday objects such as springs/chairs/buckets/you name it) and "compiling drum beats either on the fly, or modled after a certain pattern simply by cut and pasting using cooledit, has acctually worked well in creating the percussive section of my music. IT is definately not a recommended method and can be extremely frusterating because usually takes a long time to do - time which could be spent instead starting the melody section. However when the drum beat is finished and sounds good it is extremely worth it. As with industrial music, usually it is the drums which carry the music (but not all the time).

Thus I'll start working in cooledits multitracker laying out the loops I created and basically predicting the patterns of a song (which can be changed later if need be).

Next its common for me to work with synth lines (bass or rythm) I rarely use guitars but have had a lot of success recording both electric acoustic and electric. But since I use guitar so infrequently I won't talk about that. Synth is a major deal for me. The worst part is that because of budget I'm forced to work with an absolute piece of shit keyboard - a Casio CTK-411 non-sampling, and not touch sensitve. However I still find that it can if heavily effect sound semi decent. I record the keys by taking the line out of the keyboard and feeding it directly to the line in on my comp. My keyboard has a really shitty sample rate thus a very annoying noise/hiss thing sounds at every note, this is always a big problem in terms of getting rid of the sound but keeping the keyboards overall brightness and flavor. Sometimes I go crazy and completely fuck the sound up by utterly destroying it's original sound with the stretch function or noise reducing function in cool edit. The result is generally sounds good and sounds obscewer which is convenient for my style of music (if anyone downloaded the song "Despondency" you can hear this done to my lead line in that song, the original patch was a harp)

Sampling.. With sampling, either I hook a VCR via RCA cable to my reciever and feed out with a patch to the input of my computer. This setup is like my mic set up and poses difficulties in monitoring (and is even more difficult when I am to lazy to hook up a TV screen, but that's a different story :). The end result is like sampling real life objects for me, decent but needs volume. Samples are usually ellusive little details I add anyways so the volume is not always a big problem.

And finally once I've recorded and done a general mix I start with vocals. I use the technique described above and the result I believe is acctually somewhat good... but maybe thats just me..

My mix down technique is as follows.

(by the way I always work in 16-bit 44.1kHz Stereo/Mono for individual files, always stereo on drums, rarely on vocals (I'm also working with about 600 megs of hardrive space (did I mention my computer sucks? lol))
Since my computer sucks I usually have to split the songs up into two or three parts (going beyond 3 minutes with 10 tracks usually crashes the bitch). So I've basically got like three mixing sessions a song, and I work ALONE! it's incredily tiring and frusterating. It's difficult enough to standardize between song sections, but then making each section sound good is also damn near impossible. I must admit I'm a culpret and I boost more than I cut, but I'm an extreme newbie - I've only made about 7 songs with Cool Edit (I used to use Cubasis AU but lets not go there because that was a veritble nightmare). Anyways, usually I compress the vocals using the Compression graph on Cool Edit. Generally these are my ratios (I'm still fairly unaware of what it all means)
cmp 1.89 : 1 above -21.7 dB
exp 1.35 : 1 below -21.7 dB
exp 1.04 : 1 below -36.9 dB
But the result is decent sounds vocals that don't really sound to squashed to me, or maybe that's just my newbie ears :)

Ok and then I'll effect the vocals if I feel it would be appropriate and then start working on parametric EQ to generally get them sounding as full, clear and crisp as possible without the causing clipping in the generaly mix.

I have a rule that drums come before synth, I learned that from my work with cubasis but I'm not sure if it really applies any more. I battle with clipping and unpleasant scratchy sounds that are caused when the drums and synths reach peaks at the same time. Most of my synth sounds are long sustaining sounds. I generally have no problem with quicker attacking synths. My drums are almost always incredibly massive and heavy sounding.. but cutting them, makes the song lack severly. As well I stuggle with subsonic bass (the kind that makes my speakers wobble but no sound is produced) cutting at 50hz and under usually negates this effect but also draws from the overall drum pressance. cutting at 40hz or lower doesnt seem to help much with removing the subsonic effect. I would say the main problem for me is eliminating clipping (my wave forms are always maxed out because anything lower gives a really poor volume rating in the final mix). I guess you consider me lucky in that my only real escape from the rigors of eq'ing comes from the fact that since industrial music can take on numerous formats and unconventional sounds I generally get away with searching for the sound that works for me.

Anways, I hope I didn't put anyone to sleep and once again I would really appreciate any recommendations, corrections, or comments on my methodology in producing music. If you see something that I'm doing that could be done wiser without going out and buying some fancy gatched please tell me :) I feel very strongly about what I'm doing and I can acctually say that I enjoy the enitre process. I spend hours and hours tweaking my music, and even more time working on the final mixdown. I do this all alone and I've been told that can be dangerously stupid for me and the music, but since no one else that I've found in this town gives a rats ass about seriously producing music I've got to go in alone. :)

And in closing damn let me apologize for this incredibly long post.. I thank anyone and everyone who reads it!

Charon

(p.s) thanks for the welcoming :)
 
Here's what I can offer

When you compare the wave form of your song to the wave form of a commercial release, you see that the commercial release looks smaller but sounds louder. How can this be?
The answer, my friend, is "percieved volume".
You probably have one instrument or frequency that towers high above all the rest in your wave form. Possibly a snare or kick drum, or some other perc instrument, sometimes even the "chunk-chunk-chunck" of a distorted guitar. In order to keep that from creating digital distortion, you have to turn the entire mix down.
What you end up with is a wave form that looks louder than the commercial one, but it is really not. Only those big spikes are louder. All the rest of the mix is much, much softer, because you had to turn it down to get those spikes under control. See?
Look closely at your home-made wave form. Do you see a series of big spikes towering above the general volume? I'll bet you do. If it's a drum or perc, it generally falls in the beats, and you will see it repeatedly throught the song. The instrument that is making that spike is what is causing your overall level to be too low. Find that instrument! Compress it! EQ it to cut the offending frequency! Get those spikes down within the general level of the rest of the music. THen you can turn up the overall level of the song without distortion.
In the commercial wave form, you will see that it is very "dense" and there are no big obnoxious spikes anywhere. This means that the overall volume level can be greater. The "percieved volume".
And that is what makes us happy.
Aaron
http://www.aaroncheney.com
 
excellent Aaron...

exactly. Charon, when I opened your WAV, you've got HUGE spikes in places - Aaron put it much better than I could.
 
About My Music

Just so everyone knows, if your going to download one of my songs - do not get the wave files... they will of course sound like crap because they were made using Cubasis AU, recorded to tape, then rerecorded to computer for sample sections.. My more current stuff done on Cool Edit is all in MP3 format... lol... you'll notice these sound really sloshy because I used poor bitrates when converting...

to restate ONLY GET THE MP3's... but if you really just want to laugh at me you can download the wavs :)

Sorry for the confusion...

Charon
 
I salute you dude!

Charon17,

You are what I like most about Indie music. Reading your epic recording process almost brought tears to my eyes. You seem like a stubborn hombre, and that is a good thing! You'll get through this and iron out many more wrinkles I'm sure (especially if you listen the folks around here). Good luck! Now I am off to hear your work, I'm sure I'll be impressed!
 
Back
Top