overall volume of a finished track after bouncing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brohnis
  • Start date Start date
B

Brohnis

New member
Hey everyone

So, I've recorded a couple of songs now which I'm really happy with. The problem I have is this:

Both songs are much quieter than I thought they would be when played next to pro recordings.
I've tried going back into the tracks and just bumping everything up but having a hard time doing this without the track clipping.

I'm guessing a compressor is the way to go but this doesn't always sound great...plus it might be the wrong thing to do!

My question is this- what is the normal volume of a song? How do I get all my songs the same volume, and consistent with pro recordings?

Many thanks in advance!

Tim
 
WITHOUT attempting to equate "mastering" with "loud" --- The final playback volume is generally determined during the mastering phase. It's only a small and nearly insignificant part of the mastering phase, but there it is.

If your mixes are floating between -24 and -20dB(FS)RMS or so, they're easily at "normal, pro levels" -- They're just not at typical "on the shelf" levels -- although even the "off the shelf" levels of the last decade or so are completely at odds with "sounding good" and other such things.

Short story - Ram it into a limiter. Presto - Volume.

"Quality" volume...? Probably not. But volume? Certainly.

If you want "pro" volume you may have to go through what the pros go through (as it's very rarely as simple as a couple dynamics plugs).
 
The best thing to do is turn your stereo up!

Google "loudness wars" and you will learn all about it. Basically over the last 20 years, the "pros" have been increasing volume with compressors and limiters trying to outdo each other. Someone figured louder is better. The problem is that as you make things louder, you start to affect the dynamic range.

Load up any new song on a track in your DAW and look at the waveform. It is basically one big solid brick, no dynamics.

You can achieve this with your tracks by putting a limiter on the master bus, but loud doesn't mean better.
 
Washburn100 said:
The best thing to do is turn your stereo up!

Google "loudness wars" and you will learn all about it. Basically over the last 20 years, the "pros" have been increasing volume with compressors and limiters trying to outdo each other. Someone figured louder is better. The problem is that as you make things louder, you start to affect the dynamic range.

Load up any new song on a track in your DAW and look at the waveform. It is basically one big solid brick, no dynamics.

You can achieve this with your tracks by putting a limiter on the master bus, but loud doesn't mean better.
Click to expand...

+1 a limiter will give you loudness, but as john @ massive said its not "quality". I would go back to the mix and figure out your problem. You want to make sure that ALL your faders are way below unity gain (the 0db mark, no +2.3 db) You can achieve this by raising the gain on your eq on a certain track, then bringing your fader down...repeat the process and you should have enough headroom on the master to bring it up, this is how I do it, open to suggestions.
 
Awesome. Yea I found that with limiters, the loud parts seemed to really flounder, which is not what I'm aiming for.

Will try your suggestions and report back!

Thanks
 
Brohnis said:
Hey everyone

My question is this- what is the normal volume of a song? How do I get all my songs the same volume, and consistent with pro recordings?

Many thanks in advance!

Tim
Click to expand...

Tim - I'm going to assume the songs enter your computer at some point after the mixdown/bounce, yes? Do you have a way to check the AVERAGE loudness of a song with your software (an Analysis or Stats function)? If so, load up one or two of the "pro" songs you're comparing to and check THEIR average loudness. Then see how much lower your songs' avg loudness is.

I find that, depending on the genre, avg loudness is usually between -13 and -15 dB.

If your song is, say, -17 dB, it's time to use your EYES with your song's wave form. Assuming you've "normalized" the mix, the loudest wave "spike" is already at max volume and the song can't be made any louder without that spike causing distortion. So if that spike (or just a few spikes) are significantly louder than the rest of the song, just reduce the volume JUST on that one (or those few) spikes, and normalize again. Then test the average volume again. If it still isn't up to where you want it (say -15 dB), then undo the last normalization, and find more audio spikes to lower in volume, then normalize again, and check again, etc. until you get it to where you want it.

This is essentially "compressing" the song, but will result in a FAR more natural sound with fewer compressor-y artifacts. It takes longer, but in the end, will yield much better results until you get a feel for how to mix down your songs to closer to your desired volume.

Home that helps!

Jake Weston
 
Well crappy doodle I fixed it.

Used a couple of the ideas suggested here (particularly the avg. volume thing) and then basically decided that my vocals were tweaked too high and the track softened too much. I had to go and remove all the settings from the vocal tracks and re-do all of them. But now its fine!

Brilliant.

Thanks for all the help, I'm sure I'll use this all again!!
 
Loudness war seems to be


audio engineers vs regular everyday listeners
 
BLP said:
Loudness war seems to be


audio engineers vs regular everyday listeners
Click to expand...
No, no, no... The loudness war is a pissing contest between bands/labels and other bands/labels. The consumer never asked for it, no respectable engineer I know is in favor of it.

This is coming from a guy who's as guilty as the next guy in allowing it to continue (under protest). But I have yet to hear a dynamically compromised recording that actually sounded "better" than before it was dynamically compromised. Over the years even my calibration levels have changed by 5 or 6dB. It's absolutely ridiculous.

All we used to worry about was sound quality. At the mastering phase, it was a delicate 'dance' of balancing and enhancing that sound quality against 'normal' playback levels.

Levels today are anything but "normal" - Here's to hoping the listening public has some sort of outcry (not unlike with Metallica's latest, but on a much larger scale).
 
I'm personally sick of hearing people whine about the "loudness war". It is what it is and it's not going anywhere. I find that modern recordings sound okay loud. Mixing/mastering engineers know how to use their equipment to get good results while still being loud as fuck, for the most part. Listen to modern commercial rock releases. They're loud as hell but still sound good - even if the content sucks. It seems to get much uglier when they re-master older analog recordings for mega loudness. The reality is that if you're trying to compete on a commercial level, you simply have to be loud. If you don't care about loudness, then don't worry about it. If you can get your mix louder without damaging what you think is your sound, then do it, if you want. You don't have to choose a side. Just do whatever you want.
 
Greg_L said:
Listen to modern commercial rock releases. They're loud as hell but still sound good
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to completely and wholeheartedly disagree on that one. I can hardly listen to a good portion of the stuff coming out now. It's terribly distorted, incredibly fatiguing, etc., etc., etc. And Gawd help you if you actually want to listed to them at hot levels... Forget it (unless you want to liberate your tweeters).

They're "loud as hell" to be sure - But if the average listener could hear what they sounded like before they were loud as hell, there would be an uprising.
 
Massive Master said:
I'm going to have to completely and wholeheartedly disagree on that one. I can hardly listen to a good portion of the stuff coming out now. It's terribly distorted, incredibly fatiguing, etc., etc., etc. And Gawd help you if you actually want to listed to them at hot levels... Forget it (unless you want to liberate your tweeters).

They're "loud as hell" to be sure - But if the average listener could hear what they sounded like before they were loud as hell, there would be an uprising.
Click to expand...

But they can't, so they don't care. Besides, the average listener listens on computer speakers or earbuds. They wouldn't know the difference anyway. Are you mastering for other mastering engineers, or for the general shmoes?
 
For the overall volume to finished track, I'd find the best recorded song in whatever genre I'm in, put that song right up on Cubase in my song, and try to match it.

You don't want the song too loud because that does sound bad, but you also don't want your song to be softer than most songs in your genre or people won't like it. :mad:

To me it only makes sense to do that, then you're in the ballpark of the best in the industry. This all is a no-brainer to me - copy the pro's.
 
Last edited:
but you also don't want your song to be softer than most songs in your genre or people won't like it.
Click to expand...
This is what I mean -- People will like it fine.
 
Massive Master said:
This is what I mean -- People will like it fine.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they will - and I do agree with your thoughts that softer sounds better. I hate this "loud as you can go" bullshit.

But I do think that many people will reject songs if they are soft. They won't turn it up, the first impression is blown and they'll move on.

What if your song is played sandwiched between two songs in the genre that are louder? My thinking is that most people will think your song sucks simply because it's softer.

So to me the best thing is to match the best recordings in whatever genre you're in. Copy the best.
 
Greg_L said:
But they can't, so they don't care. Besides, the average listener listens on computer speakers or earbuds. They wouldn't know the difference anyway. Are you mastering for other mastering engineers, or for the general shmoes?
Click to expand...

I actually agree. Most engineers are in the mindset of , well, of an engineer. We got to realise the majority of listeners will not be as tedious as we are.
 
I've never bought into the idea that the audience is stupid. I've always thought that they are more into it than a lot of people think.

But you can't have it where somebody's got an iPod and every time your song comes on they need to tweak the volume up or down. :(
 
dintymoore said:
I've never bought into the idea that the audience is stupid. I've always thought that they are more into it than a lot of people think.

But you can't have it where somebody's got an iPod and every time your song comes on they need to tweak the volume up or down. :(
Click to expand...

Exactly, and yes, they are stupid.
 
dintymoore said:
I've never bought into the idea that the audience is stupid. I've always thought that they are more into it than a lot of people think.

But you can't have it where somebody's got an iPod and every time your song comes on they need to tweak the volume up or down. :(
Click to expand...

Right, I don't think it's purely a question of "stupidity".
I think the general public just goes with what is served up to them if they are not ever given choices.
What Massive is saying...given a choice to hear the uncompressed/undistorted versions...many might choose them, especially since they CAN still have the loudness by simply turning up their playback device.

That said...it may all be too late for choices, as the adopted "references" are ALL TOO LOUD AND DISTORTED...so anything new is forced into measuring "up" purely on levels.
No one seems to be paying attention to the rest of the quality...it's all about loudness. :rolleyes:
But much of that heavily compressed, pumped-up volume stuff actually IS difficult to listen to for too long. I think the people that do listen to it all the time all have lowered the criticality of their hearing. IOW…their ability to discern finer details has been lost/compromised…as it’s all about loudness.

Of course, we all want our songs to be "competitively loud"...so one has to walk a tightrope if they don't want their stuff crushed to death just for the sake of loudness....but also not have it be too soft as to sound weird when it comes up in a song mix.
The one thing about radio mixes that many people forget (or not realize) is that the stations apply their OWN level control. IOW...they pump up & even out the levels of whatever they are playing...so there's no need to do it for them, and often that double-slam is what really kills the songs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top