the sensible way to bring up a quiet mix

[dontouch]

So I have a mix that's on the quiet side. It has room to come up but it also has spikes that might cause it to clip when gained. So, to fix the spikes, should I just work with the final .wav file or should I go into the project file and investigate each instrument track...Obviously the first one is quicker. Also, if I am to bring up the volume. Is gaining it up as a whole the same as turning up each instrument track a few dBs? I'm talking about mixing, not mastering, just FYI. Please advise! Thanks!

 

[miroslav]

It's time consuming...but I usually go into the individual tracks and hunt down the offending spikes and manually adjust them.

When you do it for the mix...there may be 5 things hitting at the same spot, like on a downbeat...but only one of them might be the cause of the excessive spike. If you adjust the spikes in the mix...you will affect all of them.

 

[OneWerd]

As far as turning everything up together, yes...that would be the same as turning everything up

As far as turning up the peaks, my guess is that people are going to tell you it would be hard to ascertain without hearing the actual file. You could compress the file as a whole to tame the peaks and then turn it up....might sound great, might sound shitty. Or, you could turn down the "peaky" track(s) and then turn up the whole session/ stereo track. Might sound great, might sound shitty. Try both and see which works better for you

 

[Chibi Nappa]

the sensible way to bring up a quiet mix.

The volume knob on your stereo?

I'm talking about mixing, not mastering, just FYI. Please advise! Thanks!

There is no reason to mix loud. Get your loudness by processing the mixed 2-track.

 

[gecko zzed]

There is no reason to mix loud. Get your loudness by processing the mixed 2-track.

I think the OP has saying that he didn't mix loud, and is seeking advice on how to get loudness "by processing the mixed track".

The first goal is to get a pleasing mix (irrespective of how loud it is). If this mix is intrinsically quiet, then you can firstly try raising the levels of all the faders (in Reaper this is easy; just select all). However, if you can't do this without going into the red because of the inherent spikiness of the trackness, you would need to go into these and deal with that spikiness (as others have suggested).

Once you've done this, you should have a satisfactory mix . . . but it may still be too quiet for your taste. You can then get the track as loud as you like by applying various levels of compression or limiting to it. However, the more you do this, the more you will compromise the musicality of your mix.

The trick is finding the right level of compression that gives you extra loudness without destroying the dynamic variation of the track. This is tricky, because any amount of compression inherently reduces the dynamic range . . . so you have to find the spot that represents a reasonable compromise between loudness and dynamic range.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

You can then get the track as loud as you like by applying various levels of compression or limiting to it.

I still say you can get the track as loud as you want with the volume knob on the stereo.


Can somebody give me a single reason to process for volume? Other than "it is what you do"?

I'm not even exaggerating. One single reason to raise the volume through processing.

 

[Seafroggys]

Manually lowering volume on spikes through volume automation is a great tool, and does more for increasing overall loudness than any compression or limiter tool. Unless you really really drop a transient hard, there is no audible difference (in my experience anyway).

Another tool you can use is TesslaPro, a VST plug-in that acts as a transient shaper (that's free)

 

[Chibi Nappa]

The trick is finding the right level of compression that gives you extra loudness without destroying the dynamic variation of the track.

You put compression on the 2-bus to make it sound good. Rock n' roll loves the sound of compression. Loudness is a byproduct. You've got it backwards. You don't compress for loudness and then get the sonic benefits as a byproduct.

 

[Waltz Mastering]

So I have a mix that's on the quiet side. It has room to come up but it also has spikes that might cause it to clip when gained. So, to fix the spikes, should I just work with the final .wav file or should I go into the project file and investigate each instrument track...Obviously the first one is quicker. Also, if I am to bring up the volume. Is gaining it up as a whole the same as turning up each instrument track a few dBs? I'm talking about mixing, not mastering, just FYI. Please advise! Thanks!

What do you mean when you say it clips when it's gained?
Does it clip at unity gain with nothing on the master?

 

[NYMorningstar]

Can somebody give me a single reason to process for volume?

To accomodate the average listener. Most people think it's a pita to change volume levels in between songs. Unfortunately the average level these days is loud.

 

[gecko zzed]

Can somebody give me a single reason to process for volume?

If I have a CD's worth of material, I want the songs to run from one to the other in a cohesive manner. Which means that energetic songs will be loud, gentle songs will be soft. If I have a great mix of an energetic song that's softer than the other energetic songs, I will bring it up so that it is in accord with them.

(Conversely, it's also possible that I have mixed a gentle song too hot, and will have to go back and redo it so that it makes sense.)

 

[Chibi Nappa]

To accomodate the average listener. Most people think it's a pita to change volume levels in between songs. Unfortunately the average level these days is loud.

The average listener has itunes. Itunes can automatically level volumes.

And even if the average listener isn't savvy enough to enable an iTunes option, I'm still not buying that reason.

If you have faith in your song, your recording, and your production in general, and if the song is worthy of that faith, the listener will certainly not abandon your song because of a need to turn a volume knob.

Seriously, what average Joe goes "I love this song! But... I have to reach down to my iPod to change the volume. Oh well. I'm not going to do that. Instead I will reach down to my iPod and change the song...which takes just as much effort as changing the volume. Here I go... *click*"

If you raise volume only to prevent the listener from raising the volume you don't have faith in your song.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

If I have a CD's worth of material, I want the songs to run from one to the other in a cohesive manner. Which means that energetic songs will be loud, gentle songs will be soft. If I have a great mix of an energetic song that's softer than the other energetic songs, I will bring it up so that it is in accord with them.

Agree 100%. That is not processing for volume. That is processing for cohesion, overall album dynamics, and continuity.


Processing for volume is "this is not loud enough", in relation to some foreign recording outside of your own production. That makes no sense at all. I still see not a single reason to do it. I still see nearly 100% of pop artists doing it.

 

[gecko zzed]

Agree 100%. That is not processing for volume. That is processing for cohesion, overall album dynamics, and continuity.


Processing for volume is "this is not loud enough", in relation to some foreign recording outside of your own production. That makes no sense at all. I still see not a single reason to do it. I still see nearly 100% of pop artists doing it.

I'm not sure that we aren't splitting hairs here; getting tangled in a semantic jungle. The purpose is different to the process. So whether I'm striving for cohesion and continuity, or whether I'm striving to make a track as loud as the ones on the radio, I'm still 'processing for volume'. I think it is a matter of interpretation what 'processing for volume' means, i.e. 'for volume' meaning either a purpose or an attribute of the recording (which is how I interpreted the OP's request).

The OP simply said his mixes were on the 'quiet side'. I've done the same . . . produced a mix that was accidentally and unnecessarily too quiet . . . and have felt the need to raise its level without any particular reference to commercial levels as such.

There are a number of reasons why this could occur . . . you have your monitor levels higher than usual or are otherwise fooled into thinking the mix is coming out louder than it actually is, or there are recording artifacts (e.g. spikes) that prevent you from getting the mix as loud as you'ld like without popping into the red. The first problem is dealt with by remixing at a different level, or globally adjusting the faders, or by increasing the volume after the event. The second problem requires the same, but may need some attention to problem areas on the tracks.

 

[guitar junkie]

Well the whole album view point is a valid statement because most if not all of my buyers are buying an album to play in the car! they want to pop in a CD and let it roll while they drive to work or school or Wal Mart or where ever it is they shop...

While iTunes does have a level adjustment option it is not often the case with people who are say... Streaming my song on a low powered laptop speaker with very little volume to begin with, so having an overall volume that jumps out of their tiny speakers will mean they might stick around and listen to a track on some social network... While I don't like the whole smashed mix thing that the loudness war has made famous... It is a major leap to have something audible to offer my listeners.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

so having an overall volume that jumps out of their tiny speakers will mean they might stick around and listen to a track on some social network...

Have you ever, even once, in your entire life heard a song that you didn't care for but stuck around to enjoy it's loudness? On a laptop?

No, loudness will not make anybody stay.


Have you ever, even once, in your entire life heard a song that you DID care for but turned it off because the sound way too harsh and fatiguing from the loudness?

Yeah, me too.



The whole "make it louder" concept is illogical. If a listener wants to listen at 60 db, he is going to turn the knob until it hits 60 db. So why harm your own CD to ensure that the listener turns the knob down instead of turning it up? The song is ending up at 60 db one way or the other.


I still don't see a reason.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I'm not sure that we aren't splitting hairs here; getting tangled in a semantic jungle. The purpose is different to the process. So whether I'm striving for cohesion and continuity, or whether I'm striving to make a track as loud as the ones on the radio, I'm still 'processing for volume'.

Not really. When you get your own album to flow with itself track-to-track, that is a controlled environment with no unknowns. You know for certain what the loudest part of the whole piece is. You make sure that piece is not damaged, and you adjust the rest of the album accordingly.

When a client hears the finished master and tells the engineer "not loud enough", that is something totally different. All of the tracks are balanced against each other. Everything works internally. Now the comparison is with an outside unknown track that could be as loud as anything. So you push towards a target that has nothing to do with your own album. And your album gets damaged for nothing.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

Well the whole album view point is a valid statement because most if not all of my buyers are buying an album to play in the car! they want to pop in a CD and let it roll while they drive to work or school or Wal Mart or where ever it is they shop...

We're not talking symphony dynamics! We're talking rock n' roll!

You can hear Siamese Dream in the car. You can hear Back in Black in the car. You can hear Appetite for Destruction in the car.

None of those albums were pushed for volume.

 

[dobro]

It's time consuming...but I usually go into the individual tracks and hunt down the offending spikes and manually adjust them.

+1

It's time-consuming like miroslav says, but you really start listening to and hearing a track when you solo it and start pulling down peaks. If you mix in software, you can use the meter to help you - anything that goes over a certain level gets reduced - but make sure it sounds good after you listen to it in the mix.

 

[gecko zzed]

We're not talking symphony dynamics! We're talking rock n' roll!

You can hear Siamese Dream in the car. You can hear Back in Black in the car. You can hear Appetite for Destruction in the car.

None of those albums were pushed for volume.

I think you are allowing your distaste for squashed, loud mixes (which I share) to side track you from the OP's original request.

This is the orginal post:

So I have a mix that's on the quiet side. It has room to come up but it also has spikes that might cause it to clip when gained. So, to fix the spikes, should I just work with the final .wav file or should I go into the project file and investigate each instrument track...Obviously the first one is quicker. Also, if I am to bring up the volume. Is gaining it up as a whole the same as turning up each instrument track a few dBs? I'm talking about mixing, not mastering, just FYI. Please advise! Thanks!

There is no mention of trying to achieve commerical loudness, and a specific reference to dealing with problems of spikiness at the mixing stage. The OP is not talking about pushing the overall level of an album for volume.

I share the same disdain and dissaproval of the 'loudness wars' as you, and I note that your responses seem more directed at those promoting unneccessary, unpleasant and unrealistic volume levels. However, while that debate is happening, the OP is missing out on answers to a reasonable request.