Errrm, ist this topic about EQing or limiting or more loudness here? Did I get anything wrong?
ps: Yes, I know, the article speaks about EQing and compression in the headline, but in fact, it's more about EQ and frequency balancing of mixes in general.
.
Limiting, - still quiet! - best limiters?
-
- KVRian
- 1325 posts since 1 Sep, 2004
-
- KVRist
- 454 posts since 2 May, 2004 from somewhere behind my eyes
The funky guide to bedroom mastering.
Step 1. Fix The Mix!....
Make sure your mix is definately up to scratch first,ensuring the individual elements have been eq,ed/compressed/limited appropriately.
Step 2. Export as 32 bit audio file...
Export your mix as a 32 bit audio file to limit processing artefacts being added in the mastering stage.
Now import this file into a fresh project for mastering.
Step 3. Watch That Wave!...
Visually examine the waveform looking for any major amplitude peaks/troughs deviating significantly from the average .
These are the parts of the song which will make compression/limiting work harder thus heighten the liklihood of the processing adding artefacts,so......
My advice here is to manually cut around these sections and bring their levels more into line with the song,s average(unless the peaks/troughs are necessary on an artistic level of course!)
Step 4. Eq/compression...
Now that you have created a wave form with a more constant amplitude manually,its now time for processing.
Personally if i find eq necessary i,ll add it first,if no serious corrective steps are necessary then i,ll add some SUBTLE compression.
(however i normally find that almost everything benefits from a little low shelf,cutting the frequencies below 35Hz,as even though you can,t hear them well these frequencies can have an effect on the overall level and subsequant dynamics processing.)
Compression wise a guide setting would be a ratio of about 1:1:1 and a threshold low enough to register no more than 2 - 3db of gain reduction on signal peaks.
If you find that you want to add more than this i would suggest you re-evaluate the dynamics of the mix itself.( however sometimes two stages of even subtler compression can give better results)
Step 5. Limiting
Now its time to employ limiting .Use the best quality limiter you can find and set it up carefully.
Guide settings would be to set the output at -0.5db(to prevent digital overs) with threshold low enough to generate artefacts then adjust the attack and release settings until this is complementary to the timing of the source material.
Now bring the threshold back to 0,then gradually lower until you begin to detect artefacts and then back it off again just a touch.
Step 6 .Beauty is in the ear of the beholder...
At this point you may or may not be satisfied with your results which leads to the choices of repeating one of the previous stages in the process,normalising or adding delibrate colouration from a favourite plugin or outboard unit.
These are all very much a personal taste thing so experiment and play with the settings but always remember that mastering is very much a subtle process.
Hope this is of help.
Cheers
Funk
Step 1. Fix The Mix!....
Make sure your mix is definately up to scratch first,ensuring the individual elements have been eq,ed/compressed/limited appropriately.
Step 2. Export as 32 bit audio file...
Export your mix as a 32 bit audio file to limit processing artefacts being added in the mastering stage.
Now import this file into a fresh project for mastering.
Step 3. Watch That Wave!...
Visually examine the waveform looking for any major amplitude peaks/troughs deviating significantly from the average .
These are the parts of the song which will make compression/limiting work harder thus heighten the liklihood of the processing adding artefacts,so......
My advice here is to manually cut around these sections and bring their levels more into line with the song,s average(unless the peaks/troughs are necessary on an artistic level of course!)
Step 4. Eq/compression...
Now that you have created a wave form with a more constant amplitude manually,its now time for processing.
Personally if i find eq necessary i,ll add it first,if no serious corrective steps are necessary then i,ll add some SUBTLE compression.
(however i normally find that almost everything benefits from a little low shelf,cutting the frequencies below 35Hz,as even though you can,t hear them well these frequencies can have an effect on the overall level and subsequant dynamics processing.)
Compression wise a guide setting would be a ratio of about 1:1:1 and a threshold low enough to register no more than 2 - 3db of gain reduction on signal peaks.
If you find that you want to add more than this i would suggest you re-evaluate the dynamics of the mix itself.( however sometimes two stages of even subtler compression can give better results)
Step 5. Limiting
Now its time to employ limiting .Use the best quality limiter you can find and set it up carefully.
Guide settings would be to set the output at -0.5db(to prevent digital overs) with threshold low enough to generate artefacts then adjust the attack and release settings until this is complementary to the timing of the source material.
Now bring the threshold back to 0,then gradually lower until you begin to detect artefacts and then back it off again just a touch.
Step 6 .Beauty is in the ear of the beholder...
At this point you may or may not be satisfied with your results which leads to the choices of repeating one of the previous stages in the process,normalising or adding delibrate colouration from a favourite plugin or outboard unit.
These are all very much a personal taste thing so experiment and play with the settings but always remember that mastering is very much a subtle process.
Hope this is of help.
Cheers
Funk
Last edited by funkynuts on Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
The above "words" are the ramblings of a depraved megalomaniac.Any similarity to normal communication is a hallucination on the part of the reader.Replying to this post will result in your family and posessions becoming the property of funkynuts.
-
- KVRAF
- 6937 posts since 4 Jun, 2004 from Utrecht, Holland
JumpingJackFlash, anybody, please listen...
It is not your track that is too soft, it's the commercial tracks being TOO f**king LOUD!
I'll assume that you ran your mix through a mild compressor of some sort (soft-knee ofcourse) and the (limited) peaks still reach up to the 0dB mark. Then you've done a good job and you'll have a perfect sound level: loud enough and without distortions. I recall RMS levels should be between -17dB and -14dB.
Btw, don't forget any listener has his/her own volume knob that will be adjusted if it is too soft or too loud.
Edit: nice guide, Funky!
It is not your track that is too soft, it's the commercial tracks being TOO f**king LOUD!
I'll assume that you ran your mix through a mild compressor of some sort (soft-knee ofcourse) and the (limited) peaks still reach up to the 0dB mark. Then you've done a good job and you'll have a perfect sound level: loud enough and without distortions. I recall RMS levels should be between -17dB and -14dB.
Btw, don't forget any listener has his/her own volume knob that will be adjusted if it is too soft or too loud.
Edit: nice guide, Funky!
-
- KVRAF
- 3400 posts since 26 Mar, 2002 from london
Not true, it is possible to achieve a similar loudness without distortion, it just means that your mix must be excellent. The free TLS Maximizer is the best plugin limiter I've tried.Rozzer wrote:Some multiband compression before your limiter will help.
Don't expect to get near the volume of some comercial CDs with a few plugins though. Those CDs have been run though some *very* expensive hardware.
Every day takes figuring out all over again how to f#ckin’ live.
-
- KVRist
- 58 posts since 3 Jun, 2003 from Nottingham
I agree. I was making a mix CD recently and the volume differences between CDs from 1990 and today were crazy. It was then I finally began to realise that the modern tracks sounded worse.It is not your track that is too soft, it's the commercial tracks being TOO f**king LOUD!
The last Prodigy CD is unbearable in places. Not that it was anywhere near my mix CD
-
- KVRAF
- 2730 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Capital City, UK
LBN wrote:But its ghost lives on:jdg wrote:loudnessrace . net is gone
http://web.archive.org/web/200312190015 ... srace.net/
such a shame. I prepared three mixes of 'wheel me out' by was not was. three reissues from 89, 2000 and 2003 getting gradually more limited and compressed - the 2003 issue had hardly any transients! sounded really wierd and smooth.
Although the site has gone, we shouldn't forget it. I'm even tempted to mail the owner to perhaps ask if he may consider reopening it. looks like he works in waves - maybe there was a reason he had to close the site.
-
- KVRist
- 366 posts since 1 Sep, 2004
Quick hijacking...I remember seeing a link on KVR (around christmas) to an article (about 30 pages i think) called something like "how to record (master?) a pop record" which was said to be a must-read. Anyone know what i'm talking about? Couldn't find it here anymore nor through google...
-
Stupid American Pig Stupid American Pig https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=4753 - KVRAF
- 7065 posts since 25 Nov, 2002 from not sure
that is one problem with limiters and compressors- at first, the jump in loudness pops out and makes it sound "better". But it gets very annoying very quickly. My rule of thumb is taht if I see at least some 3 db transients in the wave and I am normalised then I am close. If your final rendering looks like a rectangle from beginning to end, and it contains drums, then you squashed it too much...
-
- KVRAF
- 2730 posts since 15 Apr, 2004 from Capital City, UK
I think this is what you're looking for:flex42 wrote:Quick hijacking...I remember seeing a link on KVR (around christmas) to an article (about 30 pages i think) called something like "how to record (master?) a pop record" which was said to be a must-read. Anyone know what i'm talking about? Couldn't find it here anymore nor through google...
http://www.beatmaka.com/admin/cb/conten ... cratch.pdf
damn good article
---------------------
edit: originally appeared here
http://www.dreampoint.co.uk/articles/howtomix.htm
-
- KVRist
- 381 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from purple
if you could find his email.CinningBao wrote: Although the site has gone, we shouldn't forget it. I'm even tempted to mail the owner to perhaps ask if he may consider reopening it. looks like he works in waves - maybe there was a reason he had to close the site.
tell him i'll host his site for free forever.
worst signature evar
-
- KVRist
- 138 posts since 1 Oct, 2004 from Atlanta, GA
Voxengo Elephant was mentioned earlier here and I agree...I find myself using Elephant more than all other limiters that I have...It just adds a great sonic character and fullness to the sound thats hard to describe and improves the sound quality very much.
-
- KVRian
- 1325 posts since 1 Sep, 2004
The discussions about mastering here tends always to end up in a sort of "Do not master your tracks at all, it makes them too loud!"
That's wrong, of course. You actually have to master, if you want to release comercial grade productions.
But mastering is not equal to laudness maximizing. Some people set it equal here.
There are allot of other things to do in a mastering session. Not only compression and limiting.
And finally it's also not true, that you have to decouple the arranging and mastering step completely to achieve professional results.
Even todays possibilities ("one switch mastering") enable you to to put a complete mastering stage directly before your master fader and switch it on and off as you want at any time.
This is fantastic, because you have the chance to see what is to do in the arrangement and so you can perform bidirectional control. Nearly absolute control over the entire production.
There is no decoupled mastering step necessary, but possible, of course.
Some musicans still prefer to let make specialized people all the mastering. Then the mastering step indeed will be done in a second step, which has mostly the disadvantage, that the mastering ppl have no influence to the production anymore. Then they have to live with what's ready, which often introduces compromises.
The other side is, that very often in real world situations so called "compilations" ( i.e. different artists on one CD or even REMIXES ) REQUIRE UNMASTERED tracks, because they will master it at compilation stage to "bring all together".
Some of you (who have already done remixes for other artists) surely know this.
.
That's wrong, of course. You actually have to master, if you want to release comercial grade productions.
But mastering is not equal to laudness maximizing. Some people set it equal here.
There are allot of other things to do in a mastering session. Not only compression and limiting.
And finally it's also not true, that you have to decouple the arranging and mastering step completely to achieve professional results.
Even todays possibilities ("one switch mastering") enable you to to put a complete mastering stage directly before your master fader and switch it on and off as you want at any time.
This is fantastic, because you have the chance to see what is to do in the arrangement and so you can perform bidirectional control. Nearly absolute control over the entire production.
There is no decoupled mastering step necessary, but possible, of course.
Some musicans still prefer to let make specialized people all the mastering. Then the mastering step indeed will be done in a second step, which has mostly the disadvantage, that the mastering ppl have no influence to the production anymore. Then they have to live with what's ready, which often introduces compromises.
The other side is, that very often in real world situations so called "compilations" ( i.e. different artists on one CD or even REMIXES ) REQUIRE UNMASTERED tracks, because they will master it at compilation stage to "bring all together".
Some of you (who have already done remixes for other artists) surely know this.
.