Mastering

[mike_da_min]

Is there a specific program you use to master other than SAW??? I really need help with this part because i use cubase and have tried adobe audition and wavelab. The problem is that those other two programs are memory HOGS where as saw does not hog that much memory.

[AudioAstronomer]

Use SAw :)

Then use the forum search to search on the topic, we've discussed it a bunch of times with lots of valuable information.

[Oz Nimbus]

I'll second what Robert said. Saw slaughters the competition in this department. Seriously, it's not even close.

[tomasino]

3rdzy's from over here.
Keep it in Sawstudio.

Dial in the Levelizer on the Master Out (after you've built out your mix).
Total WOW! I think there's a training video on using the Levelizer somewhere too.

[TotalSonic]

Get the JMS Audioware CSG - http://www.jms-audioware.com/csg.htm
at $50 a bargain as it allows you to do your PQ points (including pause id's) and all your subcodes such as ISRC, UPC/MCN and CD Text directly in the SAWStudio environment.

Couple it with a burning app capable of loading .cue files (such as the freeware Exact Audio Copy - http://www.exactaudiocopy.de or Ahead's Nero 6 - http://www.ahead.de ) you can do all your Red Book audio burning work pretty much completely in the SAW. For me this makes it a lot easier to do layouts and revisions and also makes it much easier to approach the mastering project as a whole rather than as just a bunch of assembled tracks (which is a vital part to me in mastering).

This might not go down that well here - but in my own mastering work I find I tend to prefer using analog eq's & comps (mainly the Rupert Neve designed Amek Medici and sometimes with a pair of modded Filtek MkIII's & NTP-179-120's) for primary per tracks processing. It's vital to have good DA and AD if you are going to set up an analog processing chain loop for mastering - based on my personal preferences I've chosen the Lavry Blue for DA and the Mytek Stereo96 as my AD. After capture if needed I then do additional minor tweaks (a lot of times automated per phrase or note) using the JMS Audioware Hi-Res EQ. For brick wall digital peak limiting the Levelizer is incredibly transparent if used subtly - and in fact I'd call it "best in class" as far as this goes. For when clients want to what is to my ear an unfortunately over-squashed direction in order to compete in the "loudness war" I've found that the Waves L3 chained with the Levelizer with bost set more subtly can often give more transparent results than either of these two limiters trying to get all of the gain reduction themselves. Obviously - ommv.

A few thoughts towards mastering mixes that you've done yourself:
To me the primary reason for mastering is not to get things "louder" but to create a coherent album that flows as whole (and not just a collection of songs) that translates with the artist's intentions completely intact to the widest range of systems possible. Key to achieving that goal is to get the best possible perspective on the mixes. If you're working on near field monitors in a room that might not be optimally tuned there are indeed things such as frequencies you might be undercompensating or overcompensating for or resonances in your tracking room, or even artifacts from processors - that you might not notice at all mastering in the same room that you have mixed in. A lot of times after spending hours upon hours mixing it's possible to lose even more of the perspective of how your mixes are truly sounding.

so -
To me if you have no plans to release something commercially then I think "home mastering" is appropriate, as it really does not make sense to budget money towards mastering.

However - if you are planning home mastering - I think if you are not happy with the sound of your mix I think it is vital to first correct it from the mix itself instead of trying to "fix" things with processing across the 2-buss as in general this will get much better sounding results. i.e. in your mix room if you feel you need additional eq across the output buss then instead try bringing out these elements in your tracks first instead of getting it across the entire mix - as this will give each instrument it's own space in the mix. Too often I've heard "home mastering" efforts where a ton of "masterizer" plugins have been placed across the 2buss that only made it sound much worse than the original mix when the 2 were compared at level matched output.

For me if there is an album that you plan to release commercially, say of even run as small as 500 discs, then I really think the tracks can be made to give a lot more favorable first impression if you get it professionally mastered. In professional mastering your mixes are played on a full range reference system in a tuned room and heard by someone who is approaching the project with fresh ears and gets to hear hundreds of mixes from different sources regularly and since that is all they do they have the experience to know what to do (or not do!) to achieve the best results, and have gear designed specifically for the job to work with. My suggestion is to look at the credits of albums that you really love the sound with and contact the mastering house that did them. Since the market has gotten so competitive you'll probably be surprised at how affordable a lot of these places if you are doing the session as an unattended rate package.

I also am glad to offer anyone on this board the "friends and family" discount if they are interested in having me master their CD at Europadisk - http://www.europadisk.com
You can email me at steve@europadisk.com if you'd like a quote.

anyway -
In the past year I've gotten to master almost 300 seperate projects - and for the vast majority of them SAW was an indispensable part of the work. To me you really don't have to look any farther for a fantastic mastering app.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Carlos Mills]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your complete and educational answer...


(...) at $50 a bargain as it allows you to do your PQ points (including pause id's)

Never used pause ID's... could you enlighten me on the topic?


For brick wall digital peak limiting the Levelizer is incredibly transparent if used subtly - and in fact I'd call it "best in class" as far as this goes. For when clients want to what is to my ear an unfortunately over-squashed direction in order to compete in the "loudness war" I've found that the Waves L3 chained with the Levelizer with bost set more subtly can often give more transparent results than either of these two limiters trying to get all of the gain reduction themselves.

I've used this idea in a CD I mastered two days ago (but I used L2 instead of L3). I found the results great. I went down to - 10 dBFS (RMS) and did not find unpleasant distortions (it was a rock album). Thanks for the tip!

[TotalSonic]

Hi Steve,

Never used pause ID's... could you enlighten me on the topic?

A pause id is where the CD player's timing counter will start counting down backwards until the next track index point. In general these are an option used during the silences in between tracks. To change a track id to a pause id in CSG just choose the index point you wish to modify in the CSG gui and then use the + or - keys.



I've used this idea in a CD I mastered two days ago (but I used L2 instead of L3). I found the results great. I went down to - 10 dBFS (RMS) and did not find unpleasant distortions (it was a rock album). Thanks for the tip!

Very glad it helped!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[tomasino]

This might not go down that well here - outboard analog blah blah blah...
SACRILEGE! :p :D



To me the primary reason for mastering is not to get things "louder" but to create a coherent album that flows as whole (and not just a collection of songs) that translates with the artist's intentions completely intact to the widest range of systems possible. Totally agree. Last week - mastering a project - the artist asked me what I thought were the best three individual songs. She was thinking the "best three will be the first three". We went the "flow & differentiation" route like you mentioned above. (my three favs actually kinda sounded the same when played back to back).

She was amazed at how easy it was to preview different track sequences in SawStudio to make the big decisions. She was even more amazed with the Frequency Analyzer and the Levelizer.

[Leightdogg]

A Quick Question About Track ID's,


I did a MixTape Project for a local DJ and I used WaveLab to in put track ID's without any Pauses between the tracks. The Mixtape consisted of the songs being mixed or crossfaded one right into the other with no beak in silence (kind of like what U hear at the club.). WaveLab allowed me to just mark the point where I wanted the track number to change and it placed the track markers accordingly. WaveLab even burned the CD right from the APP. So, my question is is the silence between tracks really important? The CD plays perfectly in any CD player and allows you to go to a particular song in the mixtape or just play all the way through with no pauses.

[TotalSonic]

So, my question is is the silence between tracks really important?

No - they are just options. The "2 second minimum pause between each track" that was originally speced out for CD's has not been in use for years and years. You're not doing anything wrong - as is obvious by the fact that your CD plays as you wish it to.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[RobertV]

Somehow it seems to be important to have a 2 second silence or pause prior to the first track! I've got caught a few times with cd players chopping the first few seconds of the first song, :o :confused: :mad:

I've never exactly worked out the proper approach to prevent this happening, and while we are on the subject of mastering, could someone please explain the correct way!

Thanks!.....Robert V.

[AudioAstronomer]

Somehow it seems to be important to have a 2 second silence or pause prior to the first track! I've got caught a few times with cd players chopping the first few seconds of the first song, :o :confused: :mad:

I've never exactly worked out the proper approach to prevent this happening, and while we are on the subject of mastering, could someone please explain the correct way!

Thanks!.....Robert V.

Yep, the intital pregap of 2 seconds must be there. Dont fight it or you'll be sorry :)

[Naturally Digital]

I've never exactly worked out the proper approach to prevent this happening, and while we are on the subject of mastering, could someone please explain the correct way!the correct way... to what? ...to master ??? :confused:

Most CD layout progs take care of this automatically (like JMS's CSG I believe). If not, there is usually an option in the preferences to have the 2sec pre-gap automatically inserted before the first track. I use CSG and Wavelab and have never had a problem with this.

[RobertV]

[QUOTE=David Vanderploeg]the correct way... to what? ...to master ??? :confused:

Why not!! "Mastering in 3 easy 10 minute sessions" :o

Sorry!.....the correct way to make sure that the first few seconds of the first track don't get missed.

Please no more misunderstandings!! ;)

Robert V.

[Naturally Digital]

Why not!! "Mastering in 3 easy 10 minute sessions" :o Oh, OK... since you asked, here's the mastering tip of the day: Parallel compression, parallel compression and parallel compression... Oh, and... order Bob Katz's book "Mastering Audio" (if you haven't already Robert ;) ).

Seriously though, for people who are doing their own mastering... Reference as many CD's/tracks as possible and do A/B comparisons many times during the mastering process. Go back and forth between your speakers and headphones... never trust just a single playback environment. Listen to your stuff in as many rooms and on as many systems as possible.

Don't get caught up in the loudness wars.

[Leadfoot]

About this parallel comp.. have two copies of the same mix, one without comp, one with? I know it sounds like a dumb question, but when you have two mixes exactly the same, mixed together, doesn't that cause some phase cancellations? Or is it ok cause one is going thru the comp? And then after all that hit it with the levelizer or something? Elaborate a little please :) Sounds interesting.

Thanks,
Tony

[Craig Allen]

About this parallel comp.. have two copies of the same mix, one without comp, one with?That's one way to do it. Another in SAW would be to use Aux Sends to send out to a compressor.


I know it sounds like a dumb question, but when you have two mixes exactly the same, mixed together, doesn't that cause some phase cancellations?Only if they're not in phase to begin with. If you take two identical signals that are in phase and mix them, it will only make the mix the sum of the signals.

[Carl Mateo]

Hey Steve,(totalsonic)

thanks for the info... I went to Exact Audio Copy site. The only downloads i found on the site were all listed as Beta and pre beta Versions:The most current version listed as below:

Exact Audio Copy V0.95 prebeta 5 (2004)

Is this the download i want or have I missed the final version somewhere?

Appreciate the help,
Carl

[Leadfoot]

Only if they're not in phase to begin with. If you take two identical signals that are in phase and mix them, it will only make the mix the sum of the signals.
That's right.. what was I thinking. When they are 180 opposite and mixed they cancel.. I was thinking way too much into that one :) Thanks for waking me up on that one.

Tony

[TotalSonic]

Hey Steve,(totalsonic)

thanks for the info... I went to Exact Audio Copy site. The only downloads i found on the site were all listed as Beta and pre beta Versions:The most current version listed as below:

Exact Audio Copy V0.95 prebeta 5 (2004)

Is this the download i want or have I missed the final version somewhere?


Yes - this is the latest version. Despite the "beta" in it's version name there are no issues that I am aware of with it - it's very bug free as far as I can tell.

also - in reply to the other post - yes an initial pause of 2 seconds prior to track 1 is a requirement for the CD master for it to be in Red Book spec. Essentially - any good piece of mastering software (including the JMS Audioware CSG) will do this for you automatically.

With some software such as Sony's CD Architect you can extend this time to longer and even place audio in this pre-gap pause so that you can create hidden tracks.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Carl Mateo]

Thank you Steve.

Carl

[chevdo]

Don't be caught up in the anti-loudness rhetoric. I'll choose success over membership in the K-metering cult.

"Squashing to square wave is sacrilige!"

"But it sounds great!"

"I don't care, it looks like a square wave, and square waves look evil!"

"But it sounds great!"

"I don't care, I'm a dinosaur and loud music is nothing but racket!"

"But it sounds great!"

"I don't care, it's theoretically distorted!"

[AudioAstronomer]

Don't be caught up in the anti-loudness rhetoric. I'll choose success over membership in the K-metering cult.

"Squashing to square wave is sacrilige!"

"But it sounds great!"

"I don't care, it looks like a square wave, and square waves look evil!"

"But it sounds great!"

"I don't care, I'm a dinosaur and loud music is nothing but racket!"

"But it sounds great!"

"I don't care, it's theoretically distorted!"

If you think it sounds great, you need to get your hearing checked. Seriously.

And Im probabaly the youngest here, and do quite a bit of death/speed metal (and lots of jazz/indie rock).

Ive tossed many a cd just because it sounded like garbage... to only find out later it's mostly because it's squashed to death. It just sounds terrible.

[Oz Nimbus]

"I don't care, it looks like a square wave, and square waves look evil!"



Not really an issue with the SawStudio levelizer.

[chevdo]

If you think it sounds great, you need to get your hearing checked. Seriously.

nah.


Ive tossed many a cd just because it sounded like garbage... to only find out later it's mostly because it's squashed to death. It just sounds terrible.

Most people want loud CDs, only those of us who master CDs know anything about the loudness wars and the near-religious tone of rhetoric surrounding the issue. I was an early adopter of the anti-loudness crusade, but I now believe my judgement was clouded. Once I knew that there was degradation my perception zeroed in on it and my mind blew it out of proportion. The latest tools such as Levelizer or L3 do a great job of minimizing distortion and on most stereo systems they make tracks sound better because the amp and speakers don't have to work as hard producing dynamics. The benefits of squashing a signal outweigh the drawbacks.

[AudioAstronomer]

nah.



Most people want loud CDs, only those of us who master CDs know anything about the loudness wars and the near-religious tone of rhetoric surrounding the issue. I was an early adopter of the anti-loudness crusade, but I now believe my judgement was clouded. Once I knew that there was degradation my perception zeroed in on it and my mind blew it out of proportion. The latest tools such as Levelizer or L3 do a great job of minimizing distortion and on most stereo systems they make tracks sound better because the amp and speakers don't have to work as hard producing dynamics. The benefits of squashing a signal outweigh the drawbacks.

You assume I know little about this. very bad (and very wrong) assumption.

I think ill go calm down first because I can sense a rant a mile long on why nearly every word you just said is not only techincally (mechanically and electronically) wrong, but completely against the grain of physiological human perception.

[chevdo]

You assume I know little about this. very bad (and very wrong) assumption.

No, I assumed you know a lot about it because you master CDs, hence my opening statement "Only those of us who master CDs know anything about the loudness wars...". What did I say that gave you the impression that I was assuming you know little about the issue? I gained much of my understanding of the issue from reading Bob Katz, and I think his technical knowledge is impeccable, I just don't agree with some of his interpretations and his conclusion.



I think ill go calm down first because I can sense a rant a mile long on why nearly every word you just said is not only techincally (mechanically and electronically) wrong, but completely against the grain of physiological human perception.

Yes, calm is good. It's worth debating, but not worth getting upset over. Granted, my charactarization of anti-loudness crusaders as being crusaders is pejorative, and the purpose of expressing my opinion that way is to prompt potential anti-loudness crusaders into emotionally defending what I believe to be an irrational sacred cow.

[UpTilDawn]

What it comes down to is:

If "YOU" like it that way and you think your audience appreciates it that way, then go for it.

If it is offensive to your senses and you believe your audience will also be offended, then don't do it.

Either way, you can't lose because you'll feel good for following what you believe to be the best way.

All the technical information in the world won't change the person's mind who is in love with a squished sine wave and all the ranting in the world won't change the mind of a techno-perfectionist.

Most people's ears fall somewhere in favor of "I like this music", so mix for your audience and yourself and you will be satisfied.

Sometimes super-saturated distortion kicks butt for guitar, sometimes clean is a dream.
Enjoy your music. :)

DanT

[chevdo]

What it comes down to is:

If "YOU" like it that way and you think your audience appreciates it that way, then go for it.

If it is offensive to your senses and you believe your audience will also be offended, then don't do it.

Either way, you can't lose because you'll feel good for following what you believe to be the best way.

Well you can lose, because the louder CD has an advantage in the marketplace.

[chevdo]

Well you can lose, because the louder CD has an advantage in the marketplace.

I should mention, however, that if Katz succeeds in getting the record-buying public to prefer non-squashed CDs produced using the K-system (or anyone else manages to get the record-buying public to prefer non-squashed CDs), at which point non-squashed CDs would have an advantage in the marketplace, I'll stop squashing my CDs. I really don't have any personal preference.

[UpTilDawn]

Well you can lose, because the louder CD has an advantage in the marketplace.

Of course, I meant you can't lose in respect to the satisfaction you will have knowing that you did it the way you feel best....... If the marketplace drives your level of satisfaction, then you would probably opt for the process that places your product in the most visible marketplace light and, therefore, be happy that you did.

For those who don't feel the marketplace is a stong enough force to drive their own level of satisfaction, then they wouldn't really care much if the marketplace rejected their product, maybe even feeling justified that by following what their ears tell them sounds best, they produced a product they can be proud of and therefore, be satisfied.

Either way, on a personal satisfaction level, you don't lose if you do what you think is best.

DanT

[chevdo]

Of course, I meant you can't lose in respect to the satisfaction you will have knowing that you did it the way you feel best....... If the marketplace drives your level of satisfaction, then you would probably opt for the process that places your product in the most visible marketplace light and, therefore, be happy that you did.

For those who don't feel the marketplace is a stong enough force to drive their own level of satisfaction, then they wouldn't really care much if the marketplace rejected their product, maybe even feeling justified that by following what their ears tell them sounds best, they produced a product they can be proud of and therefore, be satisfied.

Either way, on a personal satisfaction level, you don't lose if you do what you think is best.

DanT

I'd agree with that, but I know that my experience was that I had misplaced priorities, and my happiness was the result of an untenable position that could only be maintained by delusion. I wanted my product to be both unsquashed and marketable, and that was unrealistic. In order to maintain my happiness without continually fending off reality with delusion, I had to adjust my priorities and choose whichever would make me more happy. I think that most people who go to the trouble to record a CD want it to be marketable which means competitive in the marketplace which means loud. You can always have an unsquashed mix to listen to for yourself, right?

[chevdo]

No, I assumed you know a lot about it .

I want to reiterate this statement. I consider anyone on this forum to be the cream of the crop as far as engineering and producing goes. The fact that everyone here is either using Saw or planning to use Saw is enough for me to assume that everyone here knows their s**t.

[UpTilDawn]

...I had to adjust my priorities and choose whichever would make me more happy. I think that most people who go to the trouble to record a CD want it to be marketable which means competitive in the marketplace which means loud...

Pretty much what I've been saying.....
______________________________


...but I know that my experience was that I had misplaced priorities, and my happiness was the result of an untenable position that could only be maintained by delusion. I wanted my product to be both unsquashed and marketable, and that was unrealistic.

Misplaced priorities? Maybe... timing is major. Unrealistic? Only given the marketplace at the moment in time.

A buddy of mine creates what he (and I for the most part) considers to be killer song ideas that meet and exceed the standard set by the top sellers in the very narrow market slice of the music world for which his music most perfectly reflects. Also, his musicianship easily (and easy to see) exceeds the level of the average top seller's recorded work (as many a fine musician could rightfully claim).

He is not and will not (be) put off by the reluctance of the "industry" to proclaim his talents. He is not put off in the least by the fact that he has not "sold" his work to the world simply because he can hear that his work is well done, many people who have heard it are highly complimentary (in a very honest way) and he is satisfied that it reflects who he is in an honest and upfront way. He is perfectly willing to wait out the marketplace, or not........ it makes no difference when you are happy with what you have.

DanT

[UpTilDawn]

Let me also assume that you know your s^#t as well. I enjoy thinking about this stuff... when I'm in the right mood. :)

DanT

[AudioAstronomer]

Let me also assume that you know your s^#t as well. I enjoy thinking about this stuff... when I'm in the right mood. :)

DanT

Indeed. Some of us (me) picked up on the conversation after burning his dinner. my apologies.

[UpTilDawn]

Burning toast is one of my pet peeves (sp?)!!

Nothing worse than wanting just one quick slice of lightly toasted and buttered toast before I hit the road for the day and being called away from the toaster before it's done, then coming back after it popped up way too late and now it's way too dry to boot! :mad:

DanT

[Alan Lastufka]

I kinda like the middle ground - I like my CDs to have a little punch but I ended up being REALLY frustrated with the new Thursday CD "War All the Time" because of it's "mastering". Their CD before that was beautiful and full and dynamic (Full Collapse) but I guess with a mojor label comes the major squash. (their CD before Full Collapse was an indie analog release so - that one doesn't work in the discussion - it wasn't slammed)

The new Mars Volta is pretty bad too (granted I've only heard two of the five tracks - but the drums hurt to listen to).

Anyway - I think you need to be aware of the level so it isn't peaking at -24 for the whole album - but I would be very caustious myself about trying to make it the loudest thing out there...

My uninforned 2 cents. :)

[Tree Leopard]

Maybe we have to go back to Brian Eno's idea of "Music For..." (sorry in advance if anyone here has had enough of The Tao Of Eno).

But the essential questions are: What is the music for? What kind of context, environment?

I think Pop music is squashed for a reason. The car. Its the modern listening station. The mobile living room / bedroom. And for many (young) people the only privacy they ever get. There is a preference for a sound that "cuts" through the engine and traffic noise, that becomes part of the personal soundtrack of your day to day life. Thats what sells today. In a literal sense, car audio.

Andre

[chevdo]

He is not and will not (be) put off by the reluctance of the "industry" to proclaim his talents. He is not put off in the least by the fact that he has not "sold" his work to the world simply because he can hear that his work is well done, many people who have heard it are highly complimentary (in a very honest way) and he is satisfied that it reflects who he is in an honest and upfront way. He is perfectly willing to wait out the marketplace, or not........ it makes no difference when you are happy with what you have.

Or maybe he will change his mind, just as I did. Maybe he's only waiting out himself. But hey, if a talented musician doesn't care if his product is competitive in the marketplace, that just makes it easier for a hack like me to put out a competitive product. If the really good musicians refuse to squash their masterpieces, that'd be to my advantage.

[chevdo]

I would be very caustious myself about trying to make it the loudest thing out there...


I wouldn't bother trying to do that, either. I like RMS at around -10. The trend is to go hotter than that, but in my opinion it doesn't get much louder if you keep squashing it under about -8, and the distortion becomes too noticable for my liking, at least the way I mix and engineer. I know there are better engineers than me who can take a signal louder than I can without distorting as much as my mixes do, but I am getting better at it. There is a real art to loud signal mastering, and frankly I think some people balk at it just because they're not up to the task. And then they develop an elaborate rationale. Some of Katz' rationale seems to be in that vein. For example, he laments that squashing signals recorded at 24bits is wasting the increased dynamics provided by 24bit recording. That's one way to look at it, but the other way to look at it is to recognize that it's because we're now recording in 24bit that we can squash signals a little more and make them a little louder before they distort beyond acceptable limits than we could with 16bit recordings. I know that when I squash a signal with a limiter, the worst elements of tonal imbalance in the mix leap out like sore thumbs, where they were previously easy to ignore. Making a squashed mix sound good is hard, and that's a challenge I don't mind tackling.

[Ian Alexander]

I record VOs and commercials, so I don't know much about recording music. I use the Levelizer on radio spots, because I want to compete with the other spots in a break. I use it just to catch the highest peaks, though, and normalize to maybe 95%.

Here's what I wonder about music CDs: If you squish them and normalize to 99.99% and the end-users DA convertors and amps are crummy, what happens to the music? Also, does this whole discussion assume that dynamic range is meaningless in the genre of music we're talking about? This is an honest question. Even the wildest stuff has some subtlety to it now and then, doesn't it?

The only music I HAVE recorded is choral, in which compression really is sacrilegious.

[UpTilDawn]

Also, does this whole discussion assume that dynamic range is meaningless in the genre of music we're talking about? This is an honest question.

Even Jazz is full of squished peaks these days. It wasn't all that long ago when this would have been a big NO, NO.




Even the wildest stuff has some subtlety to it now and then, doesn't it?

Even a cinder block has little tiny holes in its surface. :rolleyes:

DanT

[TotalSonic]

Chevdo -
Your points regarding squashed CD's make a lot of sense - except for one small thing. There's this really cool thing called a "Volume Knob" that comes standard on nearly all stereo systems. And weird thing is that material that hasn't been crushed will actually sound louder with more impact when you set your volume knob to level match between a crushed master and an uncrushed one. Not only that but you'll get these really cool effects called dynamics where things like the chorus actually build up to a higher level in comparison to the verse instead of just staying at the same static level. You'll get this neat thing where things like the transients at the top of a kick drum hit instead crackling will actually thump. And there's this amazing additional bonus where the uncrushed master actually won't sound distorted in that grimy grainy digital way you get when you clip the ADC's inputs or set your L2 (or Levelizer!) past the point where the designer ever imagined someone would abuse it to.

The other problem with really squashed masters is that they simply don't tranlate will during radio broadcast where they are once again crushed by things like Optimod and Omnia processors. A great article to check out regarding this called appropriately "What Happens to My Recording When it's Played on the Radio?" can be read at http://www.omniaaudio.com/tech/mastering.htm

Now don't get me wrong - I think peak limiters are extremely useful tools - and use them in my work almost daily - and if used what I term as "sensibly" where they are set to a threshold that only goes below some sharp transients but still remains over the body of the music then they can create a nice eveness to the levels while leaving very few artifacts. Set in this way I think their advantages outweigh the disadvantages. However - once you cross when listening back on good monitors what is an obvious threshold point - then you end up losing a heck of a lot more than you are gaining.

I view mastering as being a service to the clients desires though - so if someone wants me to squash the heck out of their master so that it sounds "LOUD" to them I'll do it (in fact I made one client real happy recently becayse he wanted his CD "as loud as Ja Rule's"). Obviously the hard part is doing this in a way that makes it the most transparent and least damaging that it possibly can - and I think having superior monitoring goes a long way to being able to determine the best way to this route.

For me though great mastering is about finding a balance point. Knowing when enough is enough - even if it means "losing" in the "loudness war" - I think allows us to create masters that don't just serve the music for a very short term trend but allow us to have the music we work on as engineers be listenable for the ages.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[chevdo]

Chevdo -
Your points regarding squashed CD's make a lot of sense - except for one small thing. There's this really cool thing called a "Volume Knob" that comes standard on nearly all stereo systems.

I think you missed my point. You can scrunch your eyes real tight and hold your breath and make a wish upon a volume knob, and it won't change the reality of the marketplace. The consumer wants all the CDs in his CD changer to have the same level, and when they don't, he blames the quiet ones, not the loud ones. I didn't make it this way, I'm just reporting on reality. You're making a mistake in trying to convince me anything about volume knobs, what you have to do is convince millions of people of your volume knob crusade, afterwhich I will report that the market prefers to use volume knobs rather than expect loud CDs.


The other problem with really squashed masters is that they simply don't tranlate will during radio broadcast where they are once again crushed by things like Optimod and Omnia processors. A great article to check out regarding this called appropriately "What Happens to My Recording When it's Played on the Radio?" can be read at http://www.omniaaudio.com/tech/mastering.htm

Meanwhile the CDs that are on the charts and getting heavy airplay are all squashed! Articles like the one you referenced are a bore, look at the elaborate description of a broadcast processor as a futile attempt to convince the reader that CDs shouldn't be mastered loud (albeit, I do normally find any technical information such as how a broadcasting processor works to be interesting, but it's a bore when it's presented in this kind of context). You'd see similar articles 60 years ago when electric guitars hit the scene. Oh they were full of distortion, the purists would say, and the crummy signals they'd produce would wreck havok on the finely-tuned and super-fangled amplifiers, broadcasting equipment, etc, according to the doomsday prophets. Meanwhile any track daring enough to include an electric guitar was guaranteed to chart.



I view mastering as being a service to the clients desires though - so if someone wants me to squash the heck out of their master so that it sounds "LOUD" to them I'll do it (in fact I made one client real happy recently becayse he wanted his CD "as loud as Ja Rule's"). Obviously the hard part is doing this in a way that makes it the most transparent and least damaging that it possibly can - and I think having superior monitoring goes a long way to being able to determine the best way to this route.

True, but if you try to avoid mastering loud albums and try to talk clients out of it, ultimately begrudgingly taking a negative approach, grumbling to yourself when you end up having to make a squashed mix for a client, don't be surprised if you end up with a distorted crappy mix just as you predicted you would... and if your ears can't handle the punishment of working on a squashed mix, you won't spend the time tweaking to perfection.




For me though great mastering is about finding a balance point. Knowing when enough is enough - even if it means "losing" in the "loudness war" - I think allows us to create masters that don't just serve the music for a very short term trend but allow us to have the music we work on as engineers be listenable for the ages.

Yeah, but realistically there are only two types of recordings that people will want to listen to in the distant future and those are recordings that are very personal, and those that are huge hits that become classics. I think it's unlikely that I'll ever work on the latter (and if I do, it'll have to be squashed to become a hit anyway).

[Leadfoot]

I'd have to agree that LOUD is where it's at. especially in any rock mix.
I am struggling to learn how to achieve this constantly, without trashing the mix. I hear songs all the time on the radio that sound great so somebody somewhere knows what the heck they're doing. I can come close to those levels, but as soon as I push it further, the snare turns to mush, the stereo field gets trashed, and the whole mix changes. And I also agree that it has everything to do with knowing how to mix for this in the first place. Every client I have says they want it loud. Or they say, why is it so much lower than my other cd's.. Also agree you've got to change with the times or be left behind. It sucks somtimes but it's a fact. So personally I'd like to hear some more talk about how to achieve these kind of mixes, instead of arguments fighting against it. If anyone has any tips and experience on this subject(not reasons why I should keep the levels low) I'd like to hear it.
Oh, I have had songs played on a major radio station here in Chicago(94.7zone) and although they sounded good, I think that mixes for radio should not be too heavily peak limited. Their limiters really doubly smash the hell out of everything. So there's definitely truth to that one. I would like to know if the pro's are making 2 mixes, one for public, one for radio, or if their mixes are just so good that they work in both enviroments.

Tony

[trock]

This is very interesting stuff, you guys are way beyond me on all of this. i basically mix till i like it and then "master" till........i like it :)

actually what i am writing about, and maybe robert knows for sure. but i actually think on some other forum some guy was taling about SAW and the levelizer/mastering and katz or someone of his ilk actually said something like

"so you are saying this product can defy the laws of physics"

or something like that

and now that i have SAW and the levelizer i think thats kind of funny, like he was asking in a voice full od disdain etc without even trying something.

i sometimes wonder if some of these "older" analog guys are just getting bypassed by the new generation of digital and music, sound, and new limitations and envelopes being pushed

remeber the train companies thought the plane was just a novelty and would never challenge them for passenger travel. i think that is going on in the music industry right now.

[trock]

WOW i see it is our own total sonic who crossed horns with BK

bobkatz
Messages: 1410
Registered: June 2004
Location: Orlando Platinum Member

TotalSonic wrote on Sat, 10 July 2004 09:46



Anyway - it's proprietary to SAWStudio, but if any one is interested you can see Bob Lentini, the developer of SAW, give a demonstration of the Levelizer - the main cool part of it is that it does not "flat top" any of the transient peaks -






Really, You mean he has found a way to beat the laws of physics?

BK

[Pedro Itriago]

All I can say is that I feel sorry for you guys. You keep thinking that because you shut down all logic in a discussion with the "everyone else is doing it" & "that's how it is" arguments you're right, not even stoping for a second to even think in what you're saying, just the "believe me now and think about it later" SNL's pumping iron mockery philosophy (BTW, don't go looking for a tape of it to watch it, you may not like it).

That kind of thinking is what's been behind humanity's biggest errors (not to mention among the famous last words).

Everything has a purpose & a place. What you're stating is like a patient rebating doctors about how to make a prescription or a surgery. Just because you can buy an over the counter medicine when you have a flu, you can "believe" you're a doctor. In the same way, because you can make a recording even on a compact cassette recorder, that you know what sound engineering is.

Your electric guitar argument is also flawed, I didn't see everybody flocking into the electric guitar as the only way to play music or the most popular instrument to do music; not even with the new instrument to make music, the turntable.so don't come telling us that the only real engineering or mastering is done when you squash signals to make it "louder", that is just one teene tiny fraction of what engineering is about.

Be careful guys, that "everybody wants it & everybody is doing it" mentality may lead you to do some very stupid things.

Not because there are millions & millions of flies, will I end eating what they eat. Good luck if they convince you into doing it.

[Naturally Digital]

So personally I'd like to hear some more talk about how to achieve these kind of mixes, instead of arguments fighting against it. If anyone has any tips and experience on this subject(not reasons why I should keep the levels low) I'd like to hear it.Consider increasing the level of the low-level information instead of only crushing the high-level info. When manipulating dynamics, you can change your thinking a little and work from the bottom up as well as from the top-down. Often it's how you think about this stuff (visualize the process) that leads to innovative ways of working. Subtle differences in mindset... but it can make all the difference in the world when mastering.

It is also important to consider the bandwidth of your tracks... You can't really have it all... 20Hz-20Khz bandwidth AND a peak to RMS ratio of 3:1. :eek: If you are trying to make your track 2-3db louder and having limited (pun intended) success, consider giving up an octave or three at the bottom (with a high-pass) and trying again. Often it is excessive low-frequency information that will keep these peak limiters from doing their job effectively.

Having said all that, I still stand by my original statement... For the most sonicly pleasing results, with less listener fatigue, don't get caught up in the loudness wars. It is a losing battle. Fawgedaboudit and try to take advantage of the increadible dynamic range that digital (yes, even compact disc) has to offer. Go for an average level that is appropriate for your type of music. You'll produce recordings with more staying power.

[Craig Allen]

I'd have to agree that LOUD is where it's at. especially in any rock mix.I have to strongly disagee with this, but if you want to know how, here goes.

I am struggling to learn how to achieve this constantly, without trashing the mix. I hear songs all the time on the radio that sound great so somebody somewhere knows what the heck they're doing. I can come close to those levels, but as soon as I push it further, the snare turns to mush, the stereo field gets trashed, and the whole mix changes. And I also agree that it has everything to do with knowing how to mix for this in the first place.I've listened to some of your stuff, and I don't think it sounds bad - pretty good actually. I don't see any need to make it louder for the exact reasons you gave.

Every client I have says they want it loud. Or they say, why is it so much lower than my other cd's..You know, I had a guy one time that said he hated compression (without really knowing what it was), I said OK and mixed his stuff with very little. Then after I was done, he said the same thing, my such-n-such CD is so much louder... I ended up teaching him a lot about compression that day.

Also agree you've got to change with the times or be left behind.Loudness wars are not new - it's been going on since vinyl ruled the recording industry, it's just the newer brickwall limiters can take it to the next level.

It sucks somtimes but it's a fact. So personally I'd like to hear some more talk about how to achieve these kind of mixes, instead of arguments fighting against it. If anyone has any tips and experience on this subject(not reasons why I should keep the levels low) I'd like to hear it.Try Pieters multiband compressor and see what you think (I've only tried it a couple of times, so I can't say for sure whether it'll work or not). Set it up to limit and tune to taste. Having 3 bands will keep the bass from causing the rest of the mix to pump. Try the Levelizer and mess with the EQ settings to see if you can get a few more db out of the mix without making it pump. Try the Waves limiter - it's another good transparent sounding limiter.

Oh, I have had songs played on a major radio station here in Chicago(94.7zone) and although they sounded good, I think that mixes for radio should not be too heavily peak limited. Their limiters really doubly smash the hell out of everything. So there's definitely truth to that one.Absolutely. I'm doing some work with an FM station here in town where I'm going to help them set up their Optimod to sound better. It'll still be squished to hell, though.

I would like to know if the pro's are making 2 mixes, one for public, one for radio, or if their mixes are just so good that they work in both enviroments.Not that I'm aware of. I think the station I'm working with just gets the same stuff as everyone else.

[Leadfoot]

It is also important to consider the bandwidth of your tracks... You can't really have it all... 20Hz-20Khz bandwidth AND a peak to RMS ratio of 3:1. :eek: If you are trying to make your track 2-3db louder and having limited (pun intended) success, consider giving up an octave or three at the bottom (with a high-pass) and trying again. Often it is excessive low-frequency information that will keep these peak limiters from doing their job effectively.
Yes thank you.. that is exactly what I have been paying a lot of attention to lately is the low end, and how it affects the mix, especially where compression and limiting the master are concerned. When I compare a comercial rock cd to mine, I notice they don't have that earth rumbling low end in there, but somehow it is percievably there. That's where I'm working hard at dialing that in. Very hard thing to do. If I just roll off at 50hz, it loses to much of the sound of the kick, so I'm trying to pick out some common frequencies that will help the matter but not kill the perceived sound of it all. I hope that makes sense, cause it's what has been driving me nuts for a while. I think multi band compression and or parallel compression might be the answer, but I'm still learning. Like I said there are people acheiving this end result, I hear it all the time, so I know it's possible. Anyways thanks for the thoughts. Even with all the controversy, I think this is a very important subject, and is something you don't see a lot of pro's giving away secrets to. So lets talk :) I swear I never had this problem with tape.. but then again back then I wasn't peak limiting so much either.. oh well, those damn pros always have to do the impossible.

Tony

[ambler]

Well, this discussion has dragged me out of lurk mode. I think that there are two main things that determine whether squashing the crap out of it sounds good or not. Firstly, the music has to be suitable. If the type of music your recording is suited to having the quiet bits as loud as the loud bits then your half way there. If the music is dependant on dynamics then squashing it is going to have a detrimental effect no matter how much tweaking you do.

Second, I think you need to have squashing in mind for the whole process not just mastering. If your finished product is going to have no dynamics then you should try to track and mix with as little dynamics as possible. Then when it comes to mastering you don't need distort it as much in order to get the RMS up really close to the peak.


...You'd see similar articles 60 years ago when electric guitars hit the scene. Oh they were full of distortion, the purists would say, and the crummy signals they'd produce would wreck havok on the finely-tuned and super-fangled amplifiers, broadcasting equipment, etc, according to the doomsday prophets...


...i sometimes wonder if some of these "older" analog guys are just getting bypassed by the new generation of digital and music, sound, and new limitations and envelopes being pushed

remeber the train companies thought the plane was just a novelty and would never challenge them for passenger travel. i think that is going on in the music industry right now.

There is is nothing inventive, innovative, original or even new about lowering the threshold on a peak limiter. To draw comparisons between that and the invention of the electric guitar or the aeroplane is just silly IMHO.

[Leadfoot]

Well, this discussion has dragged me out of lurk mode. I think that there are two main things that determine whether squashing the crap out of it sounds good or not. Firstly, the music has to be suitable. If the type of music your recording is suited to having the quiet bits as loud as the loud bits then your half way there. If the music is dependant on dynamics then squashing it is going to have a detrimental effect no matter how much tweaking you do.


There is is nothing inventive, innovative, original or even new about lowering the threshold on a peak limiter. To draw comparisons between that and the invention of the electric guitar or the aeroplane is just silly IMHO.
Just for the record, I didn't agree with a lot of that post you're refering to, just want to talk a little about some of the mastering processes involved in getting these levels that some comercial rock cd's have.
For example, I hate the sound of Metallica, songs, mix everything.. now, this 'Fuel' cd I have, imo, is an awesome mix, and it's loud as loud can be.
But still has some percieved dynamics. Believe me, I'm not trying to drive people nuts, I just think it's a good issue to talk about. So don't get too freaked out about it. I don't understand why some guys get their shorts in a bunch every time this subject comes up, but I'm gonna keep at it until I get a grip on it. :)

Tony

[ambler]

Just for the record, I didn't agree with a lot of that post you're refering to, just want to talk a little about some of the mastering processes involved in getting these levels that some comercial rock cd's have...

Perhaps I was a bit flippant in the way I presented my thoughts. My shorts are quite comfy thankyou. ;)

The main point i was trying to make was that if the objective is to make it as loud as possible then you are more likely to be successful if the whole process (including the music) is geared towards that goal rather than just the mastering stage.

[tomasino]

When I compare a comercial rock cd to mine, I notice they don't have that earth rumbling low end in there, but somehow it is percievably there.
Sometimes the "suggestion of a sound" is as good as the real thing.
(that was deep - Forum poet at your service!) ;)

[AudioAstronomer]

WOW i see it is our own total sonic who crossed horns with BK

bobkatz
Messages: 1410
Registered: June 2004
Location: Orlando Platinum Member

TotalSonic wrote on Sat, 10 July 2004 09:46



Anyway - it's proprietary to SAWStudio, but if any one is interested you can see Bob Lentini, the developer of SAW, give a demonstration of the Levelizer - the main cool part of it is that it does not "flat top" any of the transient peaks -






Really, You mean he has found a way to beat the laws of physics?

BK

I talk to both guys fairly often (Bob talks to Bob, and Bob), I cant say Katz would go out of his way to see anything Lentini's done for various reasons... but I was invited over to show him some things about saw. A big step forward :D Some people just never get over childish arguments though :confused:

[TotalSonic]

In answer to one of the questions on this thread - a lot of the ultra ultra loud masters these days use very little digital peak limiting or even don't use any at all. Instead the ADC's input level is set so that it is actually clipping the peaks by quite a bit when they capture back from the analog process chain. For some material this actually sounds more transparent than setting the limiter to an extremely low threshold. I find you need a really great ADC to get away with this. Personally I don't favor clipping the wav forms - but some ME's like Ted Jensen and Vlado Meller seem to do it fairly often.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[TotalSonic]

[QUOTE=chevdo}
Meanwhile the CDs that are on the charts and getting heavy airplay are all squashed! [/quote]

Not true - "classic rock" still has a very large market share. Ever wonder why?

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Naturally Digital]

Yes thank you.. that is exactly what I have been paying a lot of attention to lately is the low end, and how it affects the mix, especially where compression and limiting the master are concerned. When I compare a comercial rock cd to mine, I notice they don't have that earth rumbling low end in there, but somehow it is percievably there. That's where I'm working hard at dialing that in. Very hard thing to do. If I just roll off at 50hz, it loses to much of the sound of the kick, so I'm trying to pick out some common frequencies that will help the matter but not kill the perceived sound of it all. I hope that makes sense, cause it's what has been driving me nuts for a while. I think multi band compression and or parallel compression might be the answer, but I'm still learning. Like I said there are people acheiving this end result, I hear it all the time, so I know it's possible. Well, as we all know, there are times when distortion is your friend... Harmonics... This is where harmonic exciters, big bottom and comps with desirable "color" can come in handy. Try this:

Set up your mix on track 1 and engage your high pass at 50Hz. Patch the levelizer post-fader on the output track and set the peak limit to 95%. Now copy your region (mix) to track 2 (create a duplicate). On track 2 set a low pass to between 50 and 100Hz. Patch the Sonoris Compressor on track 2 and set the release very fast. Start with fast attack and go from there. Set a fairly aggressive ratio and start adjusting the threshold until you are getting pretty heavy gain reduction (6-12db). (Do this with track 1 muted.) Now patch an EQ after the comp and put a high pass at 50Hz. You can optionally low pass this signal as well depending on how many harmonics you want to "add in" to your original mix. You can add more processing as desired and get your final level dialed in on the output track and audition all of this in real time, tweaking your settings until you get the bass balance you need.

This is just one of many ways to get some "percieved" bass that'll translate well to smaller speakers and a wide range of systems. The Sonoris Comp works *really* well for this but of course there's the SAWStudio comps, JMS's Program Compresser (also warm and smooth) and many others.

[Naturally Digital]

Personally I don't favor clipping the wav forms - but some ME's like Ted Jensen and Vlado Meller seem to do it fairly often.Yeah Steve, either do I. I really see no point to flattopping the signal and creating square waves but hey... whatever works I guess. :confused:

I never like to do anything that creates a square wave. Obviously one of the reasons that the Levelizer is so nice. Even in the case where I do need to hit a limiter (not the Levelizer) very hard, I personally prefer to do this in a parallel channel, hit the limiter hard and then patch an EQ after the limiter to lowpass filter the output. Add this back into the mix and now you've got more body without all the high frequency harmonics that simply end up making your mixes/masters brighter and more fatigueing.