Ok.. Really scared to ask this question..

[skiz]

As i know its been asked a million times and im sure to get the "you want quality.. not volume" response.

But when it comes down to it, if you're mixing in a loud genre and you cant get your tracks up to the appropriate volume.. it just sounds weaker.

Now im a complete newb to recording and im trying to get a few crash courses...

One thing ive been wanting to learn about is the final mastering. What is the best way to get a decent volume out of the track without distorting..? What are your methods of mastering a track?

I know that good mastering can make a decent track sound amazing, and crappy mastering can make a great track sound like shite..

So i ask you, what are your methods of mastering, and how do you get a decent volume?

By the way, im using wavelab 4.0

 

[TheDewd]

Limiting, compression and EQ.
I mostly only use heavy limiting and careful EQ to remove the mud and make the mix sound just like pro records. i.e. boosting the high mids and removing lots of low mids. It takes a lot of practice and a lot of time to get it right.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It takes solid tracking, first of all. The more robust your tracking, the more mutilitation it will take after mixdown without falling apart.

Also, if you crunch the crap out of your mix in mastering, note which frequencies come out sounding awful. Go back to the uncrunched mix and gently scoop out some of those frequencies with a neutral-sounding EQ before you crunch the crap out of it.

Mostly, though, Dewd nailed it on the head (don't have a heart attack, Dewd ) when he said that it takes time and practice. Making a mix sound ike crap and sound good at the same time is not a skill that comes easily.

And finally...

"you want quality.. not volume"



G.

 

[Cyrokk]

It takes solid tracking, first of all. The more robust your tracking, the more mutilitation it will take after mixdown without falling apart.

Exactly. 95% is in the tracking. And it's clean tracking too, where you don't apply compression, eq, or anything that doesn't contribute to the tone of the instrument. When tracking, you want to get as close to zero as possible without clipping. On average, this means for most music, the peak will be somewhere less than -1db, and the valley will be around approximately -3 or -4db.

When mixing, you will want to set each channel's gain so that the peak of each is again as close to zero as possible with the channel's fader and the master faders at zero db. The overall mix will be cleanest at this point and there will be enough room for the person mastering your mix to apply such things as noise reduction and multiband compression.

 

[NL5]

When tracking, you want to get as close to zero as possible without clipping. On average, this means for most music, the peak will be somewhere less than -1db, and the valley will be around approximately -3 or -4db.

When mixing, you will want to set each channel's gain so that the peak of each is again as close to zero as possible with the channel's fader and the master faders at zero db.

Hmmmmm - that goes against everything I have been taught. (for 24bit digital recording anyway).

 

[MadAudio]

Hmmmmm - that goes against everything I have been taught. (for 24bit digital recording anyway).

You beat me to it.......

 

[Cyrokk]

I've been doing it this way since I read this article from sjoko2, an engineer who used to frequent this board. I've also come across similar recommendations in my software manuals and TapeOp:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=25786&highlight=calibrate

On tracking:

Time to record. Record each channel to the maximum level. Don’t clip out on it, don’t overdo it, make sure you leave room for dynamics, but aim for a level which hovers just below 0dB.

Mixing

Having finished tracking, now you come to the point where you will start to “set-out” your mix. In an ideal scenario, which never ever happens, you would have all your faders, including your masters, at 0dB. Your objective is to turn out a mix with 0dB levels. Obviously you cannot do that, but always keep in mind that it is the ideal world objective.

First of all you have to realize that your equipment is designed for optimum performance up to 0dB. If you tracked something at a low level and you have to push that track way up in the mix, you will introduce noise with it. You might be able to live with it on one track (not acceptable as far as I’m concerned), but 2, 3 or more tracks? A LOT of noise.
Second thing you could do – and many people do – start mixing at a low level on your faders. Then you are happy with your mix, but your overall output levels are well below the “ideal” – near a 0dB level. So, easy solution, you did have your masters on 0dB (if you didn’t, that is where they should have been), and you get the levels up by pushing your masters up. Same results – you introduce a lot of noise, you are exceeding the optimum levels for which your equipment has been designed.

To be fair, it doesn't specifically state that you should calibrate each channel this way, but I came to that conclusion by thinking about this quote. I set the pan to center, the channel and master faders at 0db, and crank the gain until it gets to -1db (or less) at the highest peak of each track.

Keep in mind though, I am outputting from a DAW to an analog Studiomaster 16-channel mixer. Whether you should do something similar in the box I am unsure.

Regardless, by "calibrating" all my sources so that it gets as close to 0db without clipping as possible, I have discovered my mixes are warmer, easier to mix, require less compression and I have much better stereo separation.

It's at least worth experimenting.

 

[fraserhutch]

I think you want to approach digital tracking different than analog,. level-wise.

 

[MadAudio]

I think you want to approach digital tracking different than analog,. level-wise.

I agree, unless you're working with 16-bit. Then you do want to push it a little more, closer to -3dB.

 

[NL5]

I've been doing it this way since I read this article from sjoko2, an engineer who used to frequent this board. I've also come across similar recommendations in my software manuals and TapeOp:

Thanks Cy.

It was an interesting read. I still am not sure it's the right way to go for modern digital recording (24 bit), but interesting none the less. Thanks for taking the time to find all the info you posted.

I will try and dig up a couple 24 bit articles discussing the same thing.....

 

[Cyrokk]

You may be right as far as 24 bit recording. I think a lot of my research was from when 24 bit was still kinda new. I've been using an ADAT XT as a digital interface into a pc, at 24 bit, and still got decent results, but they may not necessarily be the best (neither are my ears, which are more silver than gold )

 

[riffy]

Something I recently discovered and is apparently a big issue with most engineers is the ongoing "loud wars", in that everyone is competing to have the loudest mastered tracks only to have them again punched up when they're played on air resulting in more degradation & distortion. The result is then a less sonically pure tune & basically hard to listen to. But a neccessary evil because everyone is competing. What I've heard is that some masters are anywhere from -15db to an amazing -10db RMS. -10db RMS is an absolutey crushed tune. If you do an analysis of your wave in say Wavelab and check out the RMS averages you'll see these numbers there. Rip a tune off of any modern cd and scoot it into wavelab - do an analysis, you'll see these numbers and squared off waveforms, it's sad but true. Anyway, get Waves L3 Ultramaximizer & Waves L3 Multimaximizer and get crushing! Using these tools things can get ugly really fast so pay attention to your numbers & ears!

 

[punkin]

Square waves and infinite even harmonics sound great don't they?

 

[Massive Master]

Exactly. 95% is in the tracking. And it's clean tracking too, where you don't apply compression, eq, or anything that doesn't contribute to the tone of the instrument. When tracking, you want to get as close to zero as possible without clipping. On average, this means for most music, the peak will be somewhere less than -1db, and the valley will be around approximately -3 or -4db.

Everything in there is totally, totally wrong. I don't care where you read it, it's just plain wrong. Clean tracking is about setting levels where the gear is designed to run. Preamps are designed to run optimally at 0dBVU. Pushing (more like ramming them) up to +20 to get a signal around 0dBFS is insane. There's nothing "clean" about it. That's not how the system was designed to run - Not even close.

When mixing, you will want to set each channel's gain so that the peak of each is again as close to zero as possible with the channel's fader and the master faders at zero db. The overall mix will be cleanest at this point and there will be enough room for the person mastering your mix to apply such things as noise reduction and multiband compression.

That's even more wrong than the first paragraph.

If you record that hot, you're going to be around 18dB *into the headroom* of the front end. Now, if you like the way that sounds, go right ahead. But you're adding distortion, reducing focus and clarity, screwing up the S/N terribly, and generally pissing off whatever gear is making up the front end.

And if *every track* is peaking close to full-scale, you will have *anything* but a "clean" mix (as it will have clipped signals constantly) and it won't have *ANY* headroom - If ANY individual track is near full-scale, then how could the entire mix have headroom? All it takes is one track that's too loud.

As far as noise reduction and maul-the-band compression, that's just silly... Even though, after recording everything with that much additional noise, I could almost see a potential need for noise reduction. And maul-the-band compression isn't generally used in mastering -- Unless there's a terribly screwed up mix that comes in that nothing can fix. And yes, I suppose if mixes were tracked and mixed like that, they'd be pretty screwed up by the time they showed up at the M.E.'s doorstep...

On top of that - And almost *any* professional engineer knows this - Mixes that have MORE headroom at every step in the game (tracking, bussing, groups, sends, mixing, etc.) are the ones that tend to handle the "pressure" of sheer volume MUCH better than their "bit hoarded" counterparts. I get projects in frequently that have been crushed at every possible step along the way. They sound like a$$, they have no clarity, no "air" or space to speak of - Contrast that with well care-for tracking and mixing that comes in... Mixes that might *PEAK* at -15 or lower - No problem bringing them to "CRUSH" level if that's what the client is after.

I shouldn't even say "professional" engineer - Anyone who has even a remote grasp on the basics of gain-staging should have a solid handle on what happens when you don't do it properly.

 

[LeeRosario]

Exactly. 95% is in the tracking. And it's clean tracking too, where you don't apply compression, eq, or anything that doesn't contribute to the tone of the instrument.

Incorrect. (well except for maybe the tracking part).The reason you have these tools are to counteract the situation you might be in. Be that the room, the way the vocalist sings or the musician plays, the type of music and the sound you're going for and yes, even for "tone".

In fact, some compressors and EQs are sought after largely for thier sound.

When tracking, you want to get as close to zero as possible without clipping. On average, this means for most music, the peak will be somewhere less than -1db, and the valley will be around approximately -3 or -4db.

Incorrect, when you're in the tracking stage, the object is to set an overall balance for the whole song. That will mean, leaving headroom. Some tracks more than others. The idea is to have as much of a balanced mix as you can before you even start mixing. If you track it your way, and then you send your tracks to a professional mix engineer, his natural instinct will be to set all his faders flat. He would expect the mix to be fairly balanced (in terms of levels relavtive to one another) at that point. You could understand his frustration when the balance is out of whack.

When mixing, you will want to set each channel's gain so that the peak of each is again as close to zero as possible with the channel's fader and the master faders at zero db. The overall mix will be cleanest at this point and there will be enough room for the person mastering your mix to apply such things as noise reduction and multiband compression

Completely the opposite. In mixing, you give yourself enough headroom to let the mix breathe and knowing that a mastering engineer will worry about volume and headroom later on. So kind of like you would on an analog console, you can safely bring your faders about half way and mix safely without regards to "getting as close to zero" as possible. In a 24-bit system, cleanliness shouldn't be much of a worry if you leave headroom. -12... -6...-3, whatever feels best to you.



Skiz...I hate to bring up Bob Katz alot, but he says what's logical...


"If it sounds too soft in the mix stage, simply turn the speakers up!"

 

[Jeffro Hunter]

I Think The Trick Really Is In The Bandwidth Of Each Track And The Quality Of The Tracking. You Can Make The Guitars Fatter And Louder By Recording On 2 Tracks Per Instrument As Opposed To 1 Track Per Instrument. Also To Avoid Mud In The Mastering, You Can
Boost Bass With Sheer Volume (within The Parameters Of Not Clipping) Just Remember To Cut The Bass Frequencies In Relation To How Much You Are Boosting The Overall Volume During Mastering.

 

[RAMI]

Wow! I've Never Seen Anyone Capitalise Every Word Like That.

 

[Jeffro Hunter]

Yea, I was trippin' on that too because I had cap locks on when I wrote that! Can we say "ghost in the machine"???

 

[Reggie]

I've been doing it this way since I read this article from sjoko2, an engineer who used to frequent this board. I've also come across similar recommendations in my software manuals and TapeOp:

Record everything close to 0db blah blah blah to reduce noise blah blah blah

Ah, dang the internet for providing out of context educational material for people to grasp onto and misinterpret. I'm willing to bet someone else's money that this stuff you dug up is talking about recording to tape, where there is some issue with signal-to-noise and all that. Tape has a natural hiss to it. Digital doesn't; just your hardware noise really. And some difficulty representing lower level details when using lower bit-depths.
To put this in a different perspective for you, many people believe that 0dbVu (such as your articles are most likely referring to) equates to around -14 or -12 dbFS (digital full-scale).

To get stuff loud after you have a mixdown, use EQ to remove some overabundant freqs, compression to hold stuff in a controlled dynamic range and glue it together, and digital limiting to push your signals up against the 0dbFS ceiling (or just under it). The magic numbers for all of this are: 150, 1.5, 16, 2, and 10 . These apply for any song no matter how it was recorded or mixed. It is all sound anyway, right?
There, now with this knowledge go make your tracks LOUDER! haha