Watching Over Me

[irpacynot]

Not really sure what genre this would be.

https://youtu.be/3MQtFGQsHHc?si=HMKBm01T8Zl4ftgp

[ChameleonMusic]

Really enjoyed the listen - gently quirky and uplifting... and it definitely fit well with the visuals.

I did find the mix to be a little unusual :

1) Quite quiet overall

2) Very little low frequency content - mainly mids with a little bit of highs?

[mjolnir]

really nice. the levels seem fine to me. pretty decent mix.
i like the instrument choices. good guitar performances too.
for some reason reminds me of what skinny puppy ought to be doing (but aren't).

[irpacynot]

Really enjoyed the listen - gently quirky and uplifting... and it definitely fit well with the visuals.

I did find the mix to be a little unusual :

1) Quite quiet overall

2) Very little low frequency content - mainly mids with a little bit of highs?

If you don't mind telling me, what device were you using for output? Earbuds, large speakers, headphones? I ask because through both my studio headphones and earbuds I was getting ample bass. Now, on my small PC speakers, which I almost never use, yeah, there's kinda nothin' in that department.

really nice. the levels seem fine to me. pretty decent mix.
i like the instrument choices. good guitar performances too.
for some reason reminds me of what skinny puppy ought to be doing (but aren't).

Skinny Puppy is a music group, I presume? Will definitely have to check them out.

And thank you to both of you for checking out the song. It was a great departure from what I normally try to record (newgrass, folk-type stuff). I still ain't sure how to mark it in terms of genre.

[ChameleonMusic]

Really enjoyed the listen - gently quirky and uplifting... and it definitely fit well with the visuals.

I did find the mix to be a little unusual :

1) Quite quiet overall

2) Very little low frequency content - mainly mids with a little bit of highs?

If you don't mind telling me, what device were you using for output? Earbuds, large speakers, headphones? I ask because through both my studio headphones and earbuds I was getting ample bass. Now, on my small PC speakers, which I almost never use, yeah, there's kinda nothin' in that department.

Hi,
I was listening on desktop speakers on the family PC - it just sounded all a little washed out with very little bass.

Just re-listened on my studio headphones and monitors and it all sounds much more 3D / lively and with appropriate bass!

My desktop speakers are obviously going be a lot tinnier than my professional stuff, but I can usually get a good grasp of whether a mix is balanced or not from them...not getting the same issues at all with other tracks - odd!

I'm confused! The only thing I can suggest is that you've possibly EQ dipped some of the higher frequencies that add extra dimension / listenability to bass sounds across a wider variety of speakers...

This article sort of sums up what I mean:

https://bobbyowsinskiblog.com/the-reaso ... cy%20range.

[mjolnir]

maybe run through some items through an octavizer because if the fundamental note isn't low enough, you won't be able to get any more bass out of it.
however, the mix sounds fine to me. not every genre is bass heavy. check a variety reference tunes and maybe you'll see what i mean, ya guys.

or of course, overdub some sinewave bass at the tonic frequencies in a subtle way for guaranteed bass.

[ChameleonMusic]

maybe run through some items through an octavizer because if the fundamental note isn't low enough, you won't be able to get any more bass out of it.
however, the mix sounds fine to me. not every genre is bass heavy. check a variety reference tunes and maybe you'll see what i mean, ya guys.

or of course, overdub some sinewave bass at the tonic frequencies in a subtle way for guaranteed bass.

All worth trying, but I think lowering the fundamental here could actually make it worse?

This sort of ''bass'' compatibility issue with smaller speakers is often more about the higher frequencies that should be there in a bassline...the ones that add to its presence in a track in various ways...anything from 120Hz right up to 3kHz.

It's the fact that the mix sounds fine to both myself and irpacynot on our studio monitors but sounds lacking on both our small desktop speakers - suggests a compatibility issue for tiny speakers / phones etc where the lower bass freqs are not going to be heard that well anyway necessarily because the hardware simply can't reproduce them effectively.

The way to get bass compatibility on smaller speakers is usually to work on / tweak some of the higher pitched components of the bass...the ones that can be reproduced on a small speaker...

If those are reasonably audible on a smaller system then, weirdly, the listener's brain fills in the missing fundamentals for themselves...at least to some extent.

I'm gonna shutup! I could go on for hours about this stuff!

[mjolnir]

maybe run through some items through an octavizer because if the fundamental note isn't low enough, you won't be able to get any more bass out of it.
however, the mix sounds fine to me. not every genre is bass heavy. check a variety reference tunes and maybe you'll see what i mean, ya guys.

or of course, overdub some sinewave bass at the tonic frequencies in a subtle way for guaranteed bass.

All worth trying, but I think lowering the fundamental here could actually make it worse?

This sort of ''bass'' compatibility issue with smaller speakers is often more about the higher frequencies that should be there in a bassline...the ones that add to its presence in a track in various ways...anything from 120Hz right up to 3kHz.

It's the fact that the mix sounds fine to both myself and irpacynot on our studio monitors but sounds lacking on both our small desktop speakers - suggests a compatibility issue for tiny speakers / phones etc where the lower bass freqs are not going to be heard that well anyway necessarily because the hardware simply can't reproduce them effectively.

The way to get bass compatibility on smaller speakers is usually to work on / tweak some of the higher pitched components of the bass...the ones that can be reproduced on a small speaker...

I entirely agree.
Overdubbing another (bass) instrument changes the whole tune. (but it is possible)

[Frantz]

I did find the mix to be a little unusual :

1) Quite quiet overall

2) Very little low frequency content - mainly mids with a little bit of highs?

There is a good song quietly buried in there. I agree that the mix is odd.

If you right click on the video and chose Stats for Nerds, you'll see that YouTube turned down the volume on this song by 11.3dB which means it is mastered much too loud.

[irpacynot]

I did find the mix to be a little unusual :

1) Quite quiet overall

2) Very little low frequency content - mainly mids with a little bit of highs?

There is a good song quietly buried in there. I agree that the mix is odd.

If you right click on the video and chose Stats for Nerds, you'll see that YouTube turned down the volume on this song by 11.3dB which means it is mastered much too loud.

Wow, thanks for that heads-up. I've used the stats for nerds, but took notice to that info. And honestly, I've always tried to ascertain that to get a better idea of where I should peak my masters. I was doing -12db, and now I've been fluctuating between -13 and -13.5. I didn't realize I could go even lower. That's awesome to know.

Let me ask you, 'cause Youtube likes to use techno-jargon I can't always accurately interpret. What is the term they use when right clicking that tells you the db they're adjusting?

[ChameleonMusic]

I did find the mix to be a little unusual :

1) Quite quiet overall

2) Very little low frequency content - mainly mids with a little bit of highs?

There is a good song quietly buried in there. I agree that the mix is odd.

If you right click on the video and chose Stats for Nerds, you'll see that YouTube turned down the volume on this song by 11.3dB which means it is mastered much too loud.

Hi Frantz,
I'm not sure that's quite what the YT stats mean (I might be wrong) but this is my understanding:

Volume / Normalized: 100% / 50% (content loudness 6dB)

The first percentage describes the Volume slider setting in the YouTube player window and can be adjusted by clicking on the “speaker” icon and dragging the slider up or down.

The second percentage reflects the normalization adjustment being used. This is the amount by which the playback volume of the clip has been turned down to prevent users being blasted by sudden changes in volume in comparison to everything else.

The final value is the “Content Loudness” value and indicates the difference between YouTube’s estimate of the loudness and their reference playback level.

So for example a reading of 6dB means your video is 6dB louder than YouTube’s Distribution Loudness level, and a 50% normalization adjustment (-6dB) will be applied to compensate.

Whereas a negative reading of -3dB, say, means it’s 3 dB lower in level than YouTube’s Distribution Loudness, and no normalization will be applied - YouTube doesn’t turn up quieter videos.

The video here in this thread:

Volume / Normalised: 100% / 100% (content loudness -11.3dB)

I thought this means that there has been NO normalisation of this track's volume by YT because the original level was -11.3dB below their threshold…it’s a VERY quiet track!

@ irpacynot:

where I should peak my masters. I was doing -12db, and now I've been fluctuating between -13 and -13.5. I didn't realize I could go even lower. That's awesome to know.

You are confusing RMS average levels / LUFs / Peak levels here...

A Master that peaks at -12dB is VERY quiet. (My album about to be released - every track peaks between -0.1 and -3dB)

But...

That is NOT what the levels on YT are all about, they are measuring LUFs which are focused much more on the average loudness of your track and NOT the very loudest peak.

Example: One of my tracks (after mastering) peaks at -0.1dB a different one peaks at -2dB, but they both have the same LUFs (basically overall average loudness) of -12dB.

If you are mastering your tracks at a peak of -12dB that is generally much too quiet (and does start to explain some of the mixing issues with the sound of this track)

Don't forget this article I mentioned above as well about bass in small speakers:

https://bobbyowsinskiblog.com/the-reaso ... cy%20range

[ChameleonMusic]

If you post a link to your original wav / aiff file (send it privately if you want):

I can run it through audio analysis software and tell you what your RMS / LUFs / peak levels are + what the frequency spectrum of the piece is.

[Frantz]

Oops, I missed the minus sign. YouTube is saying it is mastered too quietly. Sorry for the confusion. Fortunately, Mark (ChameleonMusic) clarified everything.

Very briefly, you want to use the full dynamic range of the audio without clipping or causing listening fatigue. Your peaks should be much louder than -12db.

Currently, I am mastering with a peak of -1 dB and a loudness of -11.5 LUFS. This can vary a lot depending on the individual's tastes.

[irpacynot]

Oops, I missed the minus sign. YouTube is saying it is mastered too quietly. Sorry for the confusion. Fortunately, Mark (ChameleonMusic) clarified everything.

Very briefly, you want to use the full dynamic range of the audio without clipping or causing listening fatigue. Your peaks should be much louder than -12db.

Currently, I am mastering with a peak of -1 dB and a loudness of -11.5 LUFS. This can vary a lot depending on the individual's tastes.

I did find the mix to be a little unusual :

1) Quite quiet overall

2) Very little low frequency content - mainly mids with a little bit of highs?

There is a good song quietly buried in there. I agree that the mix is odd.

If you right click on the video and chose Stats for Nerds, you'll see that YouTube turned down the volume on this song by 11.3dB which means it is mastered much too loud.

Hi Frantz,
I'm not sure that's quite what the YT stats mean (I might be wrong) but this is my understanding:

Volume / Normalized: 100% / 50% (content loudness 6dB)

The first percentage describes the Volume slider setting in the YouTube player window and can be adjusted by clicking on the “speaker” icon and dragging the slider up or down.

The second percentage reflects the normalization adjustment being used. This is the amount by which the playback volume of the clip has been turned down to prevent users being blasted by sudden changes in volume in comparison to everything else.

The final value is the “Content Loudness” value and indicates the difference between YouTube’s estimate of the loudness and their reference playback level.

So for example a reading of 6dB means your video is 6dB louder than YouTube’s Distribution Loudness level, and a 50% normalization adjustment (-6dB) will be applied to compensate.

Whereas a negative reading of -3dB, say, means it’s 3 dB lower in level than YouTube’s Distribution Loudness, and no normalization will be applied - YouTube doesn’t turn up quieter videos.

The video here in this thread:

Volume / Normalised: 100% / 100% (content loudness -11.3dB)

I thought this means that there has been NO normalisation of this track's volume by YT because the original level was -11.3dB below their threshold…it’s a VERY quiet track!

@ irpacynot:

where I should peak my masters. I was doing -12db, and now I've been fluctuating between -13 and -13.5. I didn't realize I could go even lower. That's awesome to know.

You are confusing RMS average levels / LUFs / Peak levels here...

A Master that peaks at -12dB is VERY quiet. (My album about to be released - every track peaks between -0.1 and -3dB)

But...

That is NOT what the levels on YT are all about, they are measuring LUFs which are focused much more on the average loudness of your track and NOT the very loudest peak.

Example: One of my tracks (after mastering) peaks at -0.1dB a different one peaks at -2dB, but they both have the same LUFs (basically overall average loudness) of -12dB.

If you are mastering your tracks at a peak of -12dB that is generally much too quiet (and does start to explain some of the mixing issues with the sound of this track)

Don't forget this article I mentioned above as well about bass in small speakers:

https://bobbyowsinskiblog.com/the-reaso ... cy%20range

Yup. Just confirmed it before coming back to the forum.

Today, I finished up a tune, and gain staged the master track to a peak of -18. And after uploading the video, the "stats for nerds" loudness thing said -15.3. So, it seems it had to increase the volume even more than the video in this topic.

All that being said, I also think the video software I use makes some minor adjustments as well. Not too sure about that. I'm an amateur when it comes to sound engineering and video creation. Just doing it to keep myself busy. But I do love to learn.

[ChameleonMusic]

''So, it seems it had to increase the volume even more than the video in this topic.''


Just to note:
YT does lower the volume of tracks over its threshold, but it doesn't raise the level of ones that are below...they just stay quiet!