Sample Rates, Mastering, Who knows?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RhythmRmixd
  • Start date Start date
RhythmRmixd

RhythmRmixd

New member
Hello all,

Okay, so I've been doing this recording thing for a few years now, read more than a couple books, and pondered over more than a few issues regarding clean sounding mixes and masters. My music production has been limited strictly to hip hop and rap, so no live instruments are currently recorded in my room-sized studio (not to say this genre of music doesn't use live instruments, just not in my scenario). Digital Performer 3, an 828mkII, and 2 E-MU sound modules (Mo'Phatt and Proteus 2000) each with sample rates of 44.1, are my weapons of choice. Setting up MIDI sequences, recording them as audio soundbites, applying plug-ins and automation to those soundbites during mixdown, and applying a few "mastering" plug-ins to the bounced stereo track has been my step by step procedure for many moons to this day.
My problem (as well as everyone else who decided they would become a recording artist) is that my final mixes are not loud enough, and lack that "crispness" that other commercial rap albums possess. So my real question here is, is this a problem centered around not having proper mastering tools to get that polished, final result? (I'm using the factory MAS plug-ins to master right now, nothing more) Or the fact that I'm recording samples from modules that run at 44.1? I would imagine the best way to get a great final product is by starting with great sounding, high quality samples. Of course, mastering is an whole other animal all of its own, and based on my readings, many of you experienced in this field would tell me to take it to the pros. Does this hold true for someone recording samples alone with no live instrument recording?

Peace
 
You really have two areas to look at -

1) The "crispness" you talk about comes from the quality of the tracks themselves, along with how they're mixed; so it's a tracking & possibly mixing stage issue.

2) The overall level (making it hotter) is a process generally accomplished at the mastering stage.
 
A resounding YES.

However, the mix still has to shine - Good mastering is there to bring out the potential in a mix. It can rarely add potential that isn't there. If it does, it sounds fake (which actually works on some mixes, but not many).
 
I think the problem is that your focus is on your mastering tools and not the art and science of mastering. You want your recording to sound "louder", smash it through a limiter, or up the gain on every piece of gear you have.

If you're interested in learning about mastering on your own, I suggest reading these forums as far back as you can and just start messing around with a parametric EQ, compressor and limiter to see what different things do.

If the project is really important to you, I don't suggest mastering it yourself. Read these forums for a million reasons why. My first "mastering" experiment came out on a label that got the CD all across Canada and I'm SOOO glad I didn't put my name on it as an engineer. Learn from my mistake.
 
Its good to see 3 responses from 3 names who look familiar on this forum, thanks guys. Blue Bear, in response to your response, when you say track quality are you referring to the quality of samples contained within that track? The balance of the mix sounds okay, its just the samples themselves that I want to sound crisper and cleaner. I don't think its something correctable with shelving EQ, although that helps to an extent. (I usually run my individual tracks through a 2 band shelving parametric EQ when needed) A higher quality sample with a higher sample rate would accomplish that, correct? And Ryan, If I was to say that I have an understanding of the fundamentals of mastering (I'm not in any way saying I'm a mastering expert, far from it, but I've toggled around with enough threshold, ratio, and attack knobs to get the basic idea of what does what) then upgrading my mastering software could only be beneficial, right? My process for mastering right now includes 3 realtime plug-ins (3-band compression, 8 band Para EQ, and broad band limiting) I have no tools for stereo imaging, excitation, or multi-band limiting. These are necessary tools for a good finished product, right? I've read a couple of documents written by the makers of Izotope Ozone, any thoughts on this product now that its finally gonna hit the stands as a MAS plug-in?
 
I think what Blue Bear is saying about the tracks, is that if you're starting with a drum loop, make the drum loop sound as good as you can. Use whatever tools make it work - compression, eq, filters, etc... Repeat for all your individual tracks/samples, including the vocals. Then go from there.

A lot of times when I get a tune to mix that consists of samples/loops, I end up reinforcing the kick and snare/clap with individual drum hits - giving it more bass or snap or whatever it needs. This can help a great deal. I also find that when mixing hip hop, it's almost always a good idea to have the kick loud in the mix, which can be easily dealt with in mastering if it's too loud. It's easier to compress/limit the kick than to try to bring it out through all the sub bass.

Hope this helps.
 
RhythmRmixd said:
Hello all,

Okay, so I've been doing this recording thing for a few years now, read more than a couple books, and pondered over more than a few issues regarding clean sounding mixes and masters. My music production has been limited strictly to hip hop and rap, so no live instruments are currently recorded in my room-sized studio (not to say this genre of music doesn't use live instruments, just not in my scenario).

....

Or the fact that I'm recording samples from modules that run at 44.1? I would imagine the best way to get a great final product is by starting with great sounding, high quality samples. Of course, mastering is an whole other animal all of its own, and based on my readings, many of you experienced in this field would tell me to take it to the pros. Does this hold true for someone recording samples alone with no live instrument recording?

Peace
Click to expand...

I shouldn't have anything to do with sample rates of your samples really. And since you're recording samples directly to a DAW it's obviously not mic technique or mic pres.

A couple of things to think about. The fundamentals of most instruments occupy the frequency range between 100 to 500Hz. There can be a lot of build up in that area. Having too much can make a mix sound muddy and dull.
Try to EQ tracks so that they are only adding frequencies that are important for the track's placement in the mix.

Also remember that EQ is relative, if you remove bass you are essentially adding high end since the relative amount in the mix will be greater. Alot of folks starting out try to add clarity my pumping up the high end with a shelving EQ when what they really need to do is clean up the bottom.

For Rap and Hip-Hop this is particularly an issue.
 
Rhythmrmixd,

First off welcome to HR. I also produce rap. One thing that has not been mentioned is your gear. I'm talking about the Mo'Phatt and Proteus 2000. You have to understand that most of those commercial CD's tracks are made with the MPC (which I pretty sure you allready know). This may be the missing element to make it crisper. I'm not saying that you can't do with out it but it does make a diffrence. This is what I think Blue Bear was talking about when he said

"The "crispness" you talk about comes from the quality of the tracks themselves"
 
I think what these guys are trying to say is that first you have to consider the quality of the loops themselves. Do the individual loops and samples themselves sound polished the way you envision them or hear them in comercial mixes? If not, then you might consider a different source for your samples and/or loops . . . whether this means using a different set of virtual instruments, raiding a better sample library, maybe paying a better producer to make them for you, or to consider a better synth, beat box, or whatever it is you're using to derive your "instruments."

From there, there's just no way around the fact that you're going to have to develop your mixing skills, or have a professional mix / master them for you. If you're looking to learn how to do it yourself, then be prepared to put in a lot of time experimenting and learning. The reason comercial CD's sound so good to you is because they have people working on them who have put in years of endless practice and tweaking learning how to make mixes sound good. They also tend to have some pretty nice tools, but that in itself isn't nearly as important as the skills they've developed over time.

That said, I would imagine the first place you should start if you're looking to upgrade your sound is your monitoring setup. You'll always be handicapped in some way if your monitors aren't giving you the info you need, or if your room accoustics are giving your ears falsified or doctored sound information. :D No one's monitoring environment tells them the whole truth (even the pros who mix those CD's you like) -- the trick is to get it close and learn to work from there.
 
Lots of help, thanks guys. I was able to make a good comparison between a commercial song and one of my mixes last night by importing a favorite rap song (Dungeon Family, Even in Darkness-Track 5) of mine for the first time (sad, isn't it?) into Digital Performer and placing the song (AIFF file, I think) next to my one of my instrumental mixes. Right off the bat, I noticed that the commercial audio data filled its stereo soundbite more than I had ever seen on ANY of my mixes. The audio data for the soundbite containing my mix deviated much less from zero crossing than the commercial mix. I was able to help this a lot by adding simple destructive gain (not normalization, just a few added db of trim) processing to my stereo mix, which fattened up the audio data somewhat, producing a louder signal without introducing distortion into it. I didn't get a chance to run that beefed up stereo soundbite through my normal mastering procedures last night, but I think I might have helped solve my loudness issue. Is normalization a process used only during mixdown, and not on a bounced stereo mix? Or should I not really use it at all? I think I need to give my ears more training listening to commercial quality mixes through my monitoring system (a pair of HR824's) to create a better comparison from where I am soundwise (and volumewise) versus the commercial mix. No one has seemed to really mention sample rates as a factor in my problem, are lower sample rates still used often in commercial mixes today? Since my 828mkII has the capability of running at sample rates of up to 96khz (or 88.2), would it not be more beneficial to utilize this? Is it possible to upsample from 44.1 to 88.2 when recording into an audio file from MIDI? I actually purchased the MOTU Mach 5 sampler about a month ago, but haven't gotten much use from it yet because my little EMAC can't run all that software without some serious latency problems. I know it has 192khz drum samples built into it, and several samples at 96khz.

I need a G5.
 
If you're normalizing, you're not using the full headroom of your mixer, no matter what the sample rate / bit rate. You can never, ever get this headroom back. So normalizing will be making your stuff sound "louder", but it will not be any cleaner. I try to keep everything at around -3dB when it comes to mixing "in the box". Inevitably, I will have something go over this, but it helps guard against going over 0dB. Yes, there is still commercial music being recorded at lower sample rates, but 96 does offer a marked improvement (in my ears) for acoustic music - though not as much of one for hip hop/dance/etc. where the dynamics are fairly constant.
 
mixandmaster said:
So normalizing will be making your stuff sound "louder"
Click to expand...
Not really..... normalizing operates on peaks levels, and so it's very easy to get a transient that htis very close to the threshold, so the amount of gain you get via normalizing is often very slight, depending on the type of signal one is dealing with.
 
RhythmRmixd
Looks like you tried Dp's master comp and master limiter after BTD'ing the tracks. They aren't the best plugs, but can get the job done to a degree. I'm not saying go get some better mastering plugs even if there are better ones out there.


the 828 doesn't have the greatest line amps for the AD convertor either, so you may be selling yourself short no matter how good the source is. Check the impedance in/outs on the 828 vs. modules. I have a 1224, and 2408 mkii. from what I understand the 1224 likes to see a higher impedance than what most mixers, modules put out. Just wondering if that is the case with the 828 also.

just my .02cents
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Not really..... normalizing operates on peaks levels, and so it's very easy to get a transient that htis very close to the threshold, so the amount of gain you get via normalizing is often very slight, depending on the type of signal one is dealing with.
Click to expand...

If so, he's pretty close to using the full dynamic range of the DAW/mixer, and the problem is with your mix, and you're right, normalizing won't make much difference. But there's a chance (and I often get mixes for mastering that are like this), his highest peak could be like -15dB, in which case normalizing would make a big difference in volume when burning a CD.
I'll stress that in my post I meant for RhythmRmixd not to rely on normalizing, but to try and get his mix levels as close to his DAW's full dynamic range as possible. :cool:
 
To get as close as possible to my DAW's full dynamic range, this would involve recording my modules (with the modules volume knobs all the way up) into the 828mkII (I'm using the gold-plated 24 bit, 96khz A/D Converter inputs but recording at 44.1khz, which is the sample playback rate of the modules), and then once I turn the signal digital is this where I need to start boosting levels? Is there anyway to boost the levels going into the 828mkII other than the volume knobs on the modules? The inputs where my modules are plugged in accept both unbalanced and balanced cables, and I have the option to select between a reference level of -10 or +4 for each of the inputs. Since I'm using sound modules I'm assuming (I'm not sure) that they are line level equipment, I want to keep this at +4, right? I've patched the modules through before with a -10 reference level, and its definatly louder, but would this be incorrect? I'm guessing once I've recorded the MIDI into audio tracks (at the pre-bounced, mixing stage) this is where I should be adding more trim, or boosting levels of each track so that the multi-track mix is going into the bounced stereo file at a louder level. Does this sound right? I've got to maximize volume levels at EACH stage of the recording process, from the MIDI module volume levels, to mixing audio tracks at optimum levels, to maximizing volume in the final bounce with compression and limiting. Is there anything else I'm missing here to obtain the most dynamic range possible with my system?
 
-10 is for line level +4 is for mic level. -10 should be the proper setting for you. Just check to make sure you're not distorting, though.
 
mixandmaster said:
-10 is for line level +4 is for mic level.
Click to expand...
Sorry - no, that is completely incorrect......

Gear runs one or the other gain structure or sometimes both (when a switch is provided)....... it has nothing to do with whether it's a mic or line input... you can have mic pres operating at the -10dBV structure as easily as having them at the +4dBu structure.

And I have very few line-level inputs in my studio that are not expecting the +4dBu structure -- the only things running at -10dBV in my rig are consumer units such as CD players, tape decks, MD players, VCR/DVD players, etc.....
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Sorry - no, that is completely incorrect......

Gear runs one or the other gain structure or sometimes both (when a switch is provided)....... it has nothing to do with whether it's a mic or line input... you can have mic pres operating at the -10dBV structure as easily as having them at the +4dBu structure.
Click to expand...

Also note that Bruce conspicuously marked these levels as -10dBV and +4dBu. The difference between these levels is not 14 DB, they run on different reference levels.
 
Blue Bear is right. That's what I get for trying sneak in advice between sessions. I hang my head in shame. Mic level refers to the signal before the mic pre. Line level refers to the signal after the mic pre that should be callibrated to your tape machine, console, outboard gear, etc.

It's good to get embarassed at times, it keeps you humble. ;)
 
mixandmaster said:
Blue Bear is right. That's what I get for trying sneak in advice between sessions. I hang my head in shame. Mic level refers to the signal before the mic pre. Line level refers to the signal after the mic pre that should be callibrated to your tape machine, console, outboard gear, etc.

It's good to get embarassed at times, it keeps you humble. ;)
Click to expand...
You scared me for a sec! I mean - you run a mixing shop, and for a second it looked like you didn't know what gain staging was all about!!! :eek:

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top