When Is It Too Loud?

[andreh]

Jan 11, 2009, 4:34pm, lyle wrote:I just find myself always facing the same decision upon final mixdown...should I nudge it up a little more? Should I back it down? Is there an Easy Button?...Unless a client has specifically requested you level-match to another [perhaps temp] track, then you only really need to worry about making sure your own tracks match one another.If you're shooting for radio play, you can go for "as loud as possible" or "as loud as possible while still sounding great."André

[andreh]

Jan 11, 2009, 4:17pm, southpaw wrote:I've had projects that sounded right at +0.3Is this a measurement taken from an analog console? A digital output level can't be greater than 0dBfs...unless you've just invented "trinary." André

[andreh]

Jan 11, 2009, 4:32pm, mazz wrote:There is a standard level for film mixing but as far as I know, there's none for music mixing.This one's gaining some steam in the production community, and will hopefully take off as others become aware of this issue:http://www.wikirecording.org/K_SystemAndré

[og]

Jan 11, 2009, 4:51pm, andreh wrote:Jan 11, 2009, 4:32pm, mazz wrote:There is a standard level for film mixing but as far as I know, there's none for music mixing.This one's gaining some steam in the production community, and will hopefully take off as others become aware of this issue:http://www.wikirecording.org/K_SystemAndréKatz should be required reading for anyone wearing all the hats. I didn't realize that until I read it. Good stuff, although the surround sound section made my brain leak out of my ears. FWIW, I set my VU at -12 for 0db, and try not to use a limiter. But then, I'm a folkie, and the dynamics are as important as anything in telling a story...

[billg]

Jan 11, 2009, 4:45pm, andreh wrote:Jan 11, 2009, 4:34pm, lyle wrote:Bill, comparing waveforms makes a lot of sense to me...that's probably what I'll do.Not trying to butt heads with billg whose music and opinions I respect, but to me this method is the least useful of the ones mentioned and can in fact lead you astray. A waveform can perhaps show you how much compression and limiting is going on...but not each of those separately, and the arrangement of the music in the track will also affect how things sound vs. how they look. Perhaps looking at waveforms is good to see if you're WAY out of whack (which you'll hear anyway), but bottom line, use your ears.AndréNo problem, I don't see it as a head butt. I'm just saying it helped me, especially after looking at the waveform of one of my songs mastered by a pro compared to what I had done before that. For example I was surprised by how much "peak" was chopped by the pro and by the density of the waveform, I would never have been that bold. It was an eye opener for me. Mine had a much different look but didn't sound out of whack, just not as good. I was also fortunate enough to have someone take the time to explain to me what they did & what I was looking at. It helped me, might not be right for someone else.

[andreh]

Jan 11, 2009, 7:18pm, billg wrote:Jan 11, 2009, 4:45pm, andreh wrote:Not trying to butt heads with billg whose music and opinions I respect, but to me this method is the least useful of the ones mentioned and can in fact lead you astray. A waveform can perhaps show you how much compression and limiting is going on...but not each of those separately, and the arrangement of the music in the track will also affect how things sound vs. how they look. Perhaps looking at waveforms is good to see if you're WAY out of whack (which you'll hear anyway), but bottom line, use your ears.AndréNo problem, I don't see it as a head butt. I'm just saying it helped me, especially after looking at the waveform of one of my songs mastered by a pro compared to what I had done before that. For example I was surprised by how much "peak" was chopped by the pro and by the density of the waveform, I would never have been that bold. It was an eye opener for me. Mine had a much different look but didn't sound out of whack, just not as good. I was also fortunate enough to have someone take the time to explain to me what they did & what I was looking at. It helped me, might not be right for someone else....but aside from how much louder the pro-mastered track was (which you could likely hear), what did you really learn from viewing the waveform? I'm guessing the track sounded better than your original not because it was louder, but because of other processes the mastering engineer applied to it. In fact, it's possible the mastered track WITHOUT limiting for loudness would've been even more appealing (if not commercially viable) to you than the one you ended up with.You can't infer tonal balance from a waveform, and even overall compression levels are hard to read this way since musical arrangement will affect a waveform's look as well.Not to say there's nothing at all to be learned from comparing commercial songs' waveforms with your own; I just wouldn't recommend relying on this method for any critical mixing or mastering decisions.André

[mojobone]

Up to now I've kept my peak levels at -.3 dB and adjusted the average levels to taste, but it tends to give poor results when converting to a lossy compression format like MP3. I've decided for MP3 rips to lower it to -3dB, converting separately from the 24-bit, 44.1 or 48khz masters instead of from the dithered-to-16-bit-for-CD files. For live shows and album-length projects, -.3dB would be the highest peak of the loudest song in the collection. I'm happy to hear that the K-system is getting some traction. I'm also looking into a calibrated monitor system.*edit* Sorry, "to taste" wasn't very specific-generally dynamic range is between 6dB and 9dB, (maybe 12-14dB for classical, acoustic blues, bluegrass, etc.) unless it's intended for radio, then it's 3dB.*edit again* actually, by 'dynamic range', I meant peak to average ratio or crest factor. Didn't mean to confuse anyone.

[billg]

As it relates to Mark's question . . . by looking at my pro mastered track & commercial releases i learned that the songs that I like were usually limited to a peak of -.3 and the lowest levels at or abour -3db. By looking at the waveforms I learned that all of the pro stuff was heavier both in the limiting (the soft clipping or whatever you want to call it) and in the compression itself. By using this info and asking a lot of questions of a pro mastering guy I was able to get my songs in the same volume ballpark without sounding shitty. Which I couldn't do before. And guess what? My wave forms now have more similarity to the pro mastered tracks than before. Now I think that helps answer Mark's question.I would never compare waveforms to make a critical mix decision but as far as getting a competitive volume out of a track without it sounding crappy I think something can be learned from looking at the waveforms of commercial releases. For me this was the case. for someone else maybe not.I'm one of those people who will admit that my hearing is crap from all the years of live performing. I do a lot of comparitive listening, comparitive "looking", and anything else that will provide a reference because I know I can't always trust my ears. Even with that I know my mixes aren't very good (sonically) and there are flaws in every one of my songs.

[Mark Kaufman]

Jan 12, 2009, 4:52am, billg wrote: Now I think that helps answer Mark's question.Actually, yes. It helps a great deal.

[andreh]

Jan 12, 2009, 4:52am, billg wrote:By using this info and asking a lot of questions of a pro mastering guy I was able to get my songs in the same volume ballpark without sounding shitty.What were the questions you asked? What were the answers? Perhaps this info had a larger affect on your tracks not sounding crappy than what the waveforms looked like.Jan 12, 2009, 4:52am, billg wrote:My wave forms now have more similarity to the pro mastered tracks than before.That'll be great for the people who are "looking" at your music! André