I used to feel the same way as people who don't like the loudness wars but now I have changed my tune a bit. The reason why some put it down is they either don't have the skills or the tools to make masters loud and still sound great.

I did not have the tools either but now I do an I don't worry about it all. Making a great loud sounding master starts right back in the tracking and mixing stages and moves into the mastering phase. With a great compressor like the Smart C2 and limiter such as the PSP Xenon one can obtain very loud masters that compete directly with the best commercial recordings. The interesting thing is yes they look fairly heavily mastered visually but still sound outstanding. Now isn't that what counts.

I have seen recently the direct successful result of a well mastered EP. My son's girlfriend has moved to Melbourne from Perth and she is a great pop singer/songwriter. She produced a great EP in Perth before moving but got me to master it here. Mastering has made it sound killer, punchy and loud and it has been very well received by record people, agents, as well as radio stations and the like. The mastering has had something to do with it. It would not have been so well received if it had been left at the original volume it was mixed at. No way in the world, period. It would have sounded dull, soft and just totally lacking but the mastering changed all that. The industry will not go over and turn up the volume no matter how good the music is. They have just listened to something else that was loud, punchy and killer. They expect to put her CD in and hear the same thing. If it does not they could write it off too easily. Unfortunate but true.

Mastering is the final stage in music production and music production does not stop at the mix phase. I have also just mastered a hip hop CD as well recently and it also sounds killer. You should hear the original pre mastered tracks compared to the final. It is like cheese and chalk. The client is totally over the moon with the final result now. It is good to get great at mastering, it will elevate your music up to another level if done well and properly.

All the music that people talk about in the past as being not mastered are a bit wrong. Plenty of mastering took place before the vinyl cutting phase. That is where the original mastering engineers in white coats used to live! And they used EQ, compression and limiting just as we do now. (except perhaps not quite as much!)

Don't get me wrong I do agree with those who say it would be nice to stop at the K -14 phase perhaps and not go any further. Some EQ and compression is still great but without the limiting we have to do now. But it isn't like that so we have to get with the program and get on board with it. I doubt it will ever go backwards from where things are now. If you can't beat them join them! You might actually learn something new and that is more important than anything.

droddey


Which ones were those? I don't remember which, but if I posted them most likely they are not remotely mainstream, and probably barely squeaking by.

The point, to me, is that not every single kid or young 'un is doing what you claim everyone is. And even then, the stuff I heard is not generally dance related...which a lot of what you are crabbing about is. 

The form of music mixing and final mastering that is loud and slamming for the whole duration is tiring and can easily be turned down. And when that happens it sounds like it is severely lacking something. I say modern and mixing/mastering is wasted in this situation. Plenty of old albums mixed and mastered this way too. But you don't have to do it. Use modern mastering techniques to create even more dynamic and exciting sounding productions. We use modern mastering techniques to take full advantage of the available dynamic range. 
 
What about a situation that still features a very dynamic mix. Lets shift it all back down and say the reference level is going to K-14 dB FS. This means the average rms level of our mix is going to be at this level. What SPL level do we equate this to. It could be 85 dB SPL but for say an exciting music mix playback we could make our ref level to be 95 dB SPL which is pretty decent level of SPL. (I love 95 by the way)

Now the music is going to average 95 dB SPL in the room. Back in the old days with vinyl there was a reference level going on in the groove but the medium did not have too much to offer after that. Once the groove was displacing about as much as it could the same ref level could easily also produce a decent SPL of the similar 95 dB SPL. 

Today if we are sitting at -14 dB FS and creating a room level of 95 dB SPL then the beauty of modern limiters and mastering technique is that I know that I have got a full and clean 14 dB up my sleeve if I feel like doing something at 109dB SPL! I would not do it often or for too long. How about use it as a factor in the music. Previous mediums offered little above the ref level but today we can create massive headroom if you want to.

Nothing to stop you from producing music that averages around -12 or even -10 dB FS. It will still sound way loud. Play it back at 95 dB SPL. But if you need to you can get a further 10 dB of level if you need it. Bam, up to 105 dB SPL. This is the time where the modern limiter does its thing and better than anything that has ever come before it. You can use the limiters so they are actually limiting less often. You can set them up so they are not working hard at all yet they are adding quite large amounts of volume to the mix. (Bob Katz in his great book on mastering often says modern digital processing is incredible and can sound fantastic)

I say it is getting better all the time. It is not getting worse. I am amazed at how good things are getting and sounding. There is just some bad and overused or poorly used digital processes. But there are also great and very dynamic and powerful sounding production that sounds like nothing that has come before it. Jazz is one of those areas. Some electronic music too. Not so much in the commercial vein but it is getting better in some respects there too. There is only one direction away from really loud dynamic-less mixes and that is over to incredible dynamic mixes. The better the music the better the production will often be. When the music is great you almost don't hear the production much at all.

I found the "dilution" argument de****able.

So I took a little time to cool off before I responded.

I think you have side stepped the issue that MOST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET MAKE MUSIC FOR THE PURE ENJOYMENT OF IT.

Most of those folks on Youtube... including me, are just posting stuff for the enjoyment of it.

For example; my 6 year old nephew says he liked watching me play guitar and sing an old country song that I use to sing to him when he was an infant. I'm a rock star!!! and my sister says it has inspired him to take his guitar lessons seriously.

Why do you think that is so bad?

I feel that your pre occupation with music making as an occupation is fueling a myopic point of view that focuses on something you define as bad while you are ignoring a cornucopia of benefits.

It doesn't seem as if you are reasoning reasonably. You are quite skilled at reasoning... but it's not persuasive. The full frontal assault on popular aesthetics is lacking in subtlety and dynamics and the claims you are making suggest an all out attitude of negativity when it seems as if it would be very, very simple, and a lot more effective, to focus on all that is good these days.




Have you recommended any new music to anyone lately?

That is the only practical way to elevate "stuff you like" to something that has a growing audience.





Here's a tune from our forums Songs section: http://www.reverbnation.c..pen_graph/song/12460110

Here's the thread: http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2627046

Now, I expect that you are going to respond with something like "Oh yeah, that's an obscure little song section on the backwaters of Cakewalk's forum... that proves my point that no one is finding out about these songs in this diluted market that has been flooded with badly made music"

So, I have a response ready for you if and when you make that claim: The song linked to was awarded a "National Award, the highest award in all languages among Indian films released this year".

So, we have a beautiful song, beautiful production, and a wonderfully receptive (and rather large) audience for such wonderful music.

I'd like to recommend that you listen to all the songs at that link... well, at the very least, I can share with you the fact that I personally found them very enjoyable. Perhaps you will too.


all the best,
mike

I found this a pretty good read for those that are interested and it's been my experience as well.

http://www.uaudio.com/blog/sos-feature-loudness-war/

Other than a few bands out there that are totally crushing everything, there's a difference between loud and loud and crushed. I mix out at -3dB with a little bus glue using the UAD Fatso. When I master, I end up at -0.1 averaging between -11 dB RMS and -15 dB RMS. Max RMS may hit -7 dB...sometimes lower. Now, in today's times for some of the older folks or even older engineers, the impact makes them think "it's loud so it's squashed" when in reality, none of my mixes are ever squashed to where you hear pumping and breathing, a lack of snare drum crack nor will you ever see this:

████████

████████

But right away because it may be loud, I can get a bad rap for it and have before. I remember someone comparing my stuff to Metallica to which it offended me and I had to provide proof that this just was not so. In my opinion there are quite a few people that are passing judgement on music that may be loud, as being non-dynamic because it doesn't sound like an old vinyl album to them. Just because something is loud doesn't mean it was ruined. If I'm doing a rock piece that hits hard, if it's supposed to hit hard, it doesn't need to be super dynamic. I'm not saying crush it...but there's IS a difference between loud and loud and crushed.

If I did a ballad, for sure I'm not going to take the same approach. But even with an average of -11 dB RMS to -15 dB RMS that may max at -7 dB RMS in a few spots, I'm not breaking any rules nor am I degrading the quality of my audio. When you start to see -4 dB RMS max and -7 dB RMS averages....then you worry.

To be honest, and I'm a guy stuck in the 70's and 80's....I really like the new technology as well as how things can sound at a louder volume for certain styles of music. For example, I wouldn't want to hear an orchestra or even Trans Siberian Orchestra super limited and squashed. But it doesn't bother me if Maroon 5 decides to make something hot. The new Van Halen album is pretty hot...but where they failed in my opinion was, they tried to make it analog sounding and hot...so it's loaded with mid-range congestion and other mud-esq artifacts that I wish weren't there. Having a warm sound is ok...but when you treat that warm sound with techniques of today, you have to back things down or that mud turns into distortion.

I'd not want to hear Pink Foyd crushed....but I don't mind if Disturbed does it. I'd not want to hear Alan Holdsworth, Gambale or some jazz trio all limited out. See, I think it depends on the music. Certain styles are ok being loud in my opinion because it actually adds to the impact as well as the aggression of the band. Metallica over-did it and ruined that St. Anger album in my opinion. The Guitar Hero cuts of that record are 100% better. But guess what? Like it or hate it, they made history as having the most horrible yet loudest album ever made. In this industry when people are talking about you, that's great advertisement. Whent they STOP, that's when you worry. :)

The other side of the coin is, I like the sound of music today better than I did years ago. I don't like the performances as much as years ago when you had to have talent as a player/singer to make it, but the instrument sounds themselves today are sounds I welcome. The new modern guitar tones are so sick, I appreciate them based on sickness levels. Bass guitar has really improved although I'll never be a fan of distortion on a bass. It has its place, but again....it can add impact even if you're not down with it.

Drum sounds today totally rock in my opinion. I'm so tired of snares and toms from the 60's to the 80's that sounded like punching card-board boxes. Let them ring...let's hear snare strainers and a little resonance instead of felt mufflers and tape/moon-gel all over the place. There are loads of sounds we either have to accept as a change in the times...or we don't and stay true to our roots. There is no right or wrong way...but acceptance is key in my opinion.

Mixes today: definitely louder than they need to be with 2-bus glue being used as 2-bus cement that is more for squashing than using it as a weapon for tonal characteristics. I rejected 6 mixes last week because of this. If someone is going to epoxy a mix and then send it to me to master it...they might as well finish the job themselves as they leave me no room to do anything other than try to further polish their turd.

Mastering as an art: You'll never see this side of it until you master something that was mixed correctly. The key to the art of mastering is when a mix is presented that allows the mastering engineer to mold, craft, design it. By the time an ME gets a mix these days, it's already more than pre-mastered. It's a shame they don't have many albums available for you to hear before they were mastered. You'd be quite surprised at just how much the ME did to make that record sound the way it does.

When a real engineer contracted by a label does a mix, he's mixing for common ground. He's not accentuating all those lows and all the stuff we that are one man operations do. He leaves the ME plenty of room to eq and raise the levels in increments. There is an art to that...it's called scuplting and it goes beyond "a little polish". You have to live it on this end of the fence to know what it's all about. But rest assured, you can't go by the songs you hear by common folks or those posting on forums. They are mastering before they even master because they are comparing to reference material that's already been mastered. Trust me when I tell you, unless the producer is going for something specific in at the mix stage, the ME is doing a lot more work than you think because he SHOULD receive a balanced mix that allows him to sculpt it into something amazing that is an art all in its own.

-Danny

Oh, good question Jonesey.  I am eagerly waiting on a Jeff or Danny response to that one.

I guess I have always gone under the assumption that I should mix as balanced as I can and be vary conservative on the compression if I am mixing to have a ME finish my product.

Bristol_Jonesey


You know, this is what has always bothered me about "getting to know your monitors by playing a range of reference material on them".

Every piece of music you pick to "learn your monitors" has already been mastered which will not put you in the right ballpark for producing a MIX.

So how do we compensate for this? 

One obvious one is that, when you set up a monitoring environment so that you can control SPL, you will mark a few spots on your monitor controller's volume knob. One is the correct level for your mixing, i.e. for the K-14 or whatever type of scheme you want to use, so that you know the SPL in the room when your DAW meters are at whatever you choose as your reference dBFS level. If you are going to go further at the end and do some final master buss processing that brings things up to a higher RMS level, you can mark a spot for that, so that you remain at the same SPL at that higher RMS, so that you have a consistent reference and aren't fooled by the higher SPL when making comparisons.
 
You can also mark one for commercial CDs that have been pushed all the way to final levels, so that you can compare yours more easily against them. It's harder to do since you can't control RMS levels on commercial CDs you listen to. But you can provide an overall compensation in the same way that you do for your own mix and mixdown levels. If you really want to be sure you could always measure the CD's RMS levels and provide a few markings on your monitor controller for various final rough RMS levels or something. Or just adjust from that point a bit by ear based on how much you know the CD is squashed.
 

Bristol_Jonesey


You know, this is what has always bothered me about "getting to know your monitors by playing a range of reference material on them".

Every piece of music you pick to "learn your monitors" has already been mastered which will not put you in the right ballpark for producing a MIX.

So how do we compensate for this?

Just leaving enough headroom for the ME and not worrying about loudness, is a good starting point, but what about the tonal characteristics of your piece? Do you EQ it to get close to your reference?

Or, do you insert your own Mastering chain right at the outset and mix into it?

This has the advantage of being able to match tone AND loudness at the same time.



Genuine questions.

Great question that I knew would come up. :) For me, the object is a clean, clear mix that isn't over-accentuating anything. If it rumbles with lows, I'm using too much. If it's too warm and chocolatey....I'm using too much mids. If it's a bit bright, the highs are starting to kick.
 
See, all this is moot for guys like yourself that may be doing everything themselves. But for me since I like to at least think I know a little bit about this stuff as well as how I like to go about it, the mix is balanced....I'll master in the impact frequencies but I will not ruin the mix based on trying to mix from a reference.
 
Jeff is correct....I do not listen to much reference material. The reason being? I find it nearly useless for the simple fact that you cannot compare what a client has done (instrumentally speaking) to something that is professionally done. Sure, you can borrow the over-all sonics of the mix of a pro, but reference material done by a major label vs. Mr. Shu's all direct instruments and EZDrummer just isn't going to hold up. The drums will be off, the guitars will be off, the vocals will be off...to me it's just moot and we're wasting our time doing things like this to where you try for this with pin-point accuracy.
 
That's not to say that those that do it and are successful are wrong or out of their tree. What it means is...don't get too wrapped up in it because it ain't gonna help as much as you think unless you are using like instruments. I can't expect a Kansas drum sound if I used a kit that sounds like Fuel. Bands think you can magically make them sound like any band they want just because you examine reference material. I've even gone as far as using HAR-BAL to cop a curve and show a client how rediculous it is to even go here. When they heard what the curve sounded like on their material, they got a clue.
 
Jonesey: You sir, can probably rely on reference material more because you are getting some really trippy sounds that are well recorded in a classic rock/prog manner. When you can deliver the goods with your instrumentation, it's easier to say "ok, this is my band...and here's a band that we sort of would like to borrow from". There's no problem with that for guys like you. But trust me when I tell you, 8 times out of 10, someone comes to me that sounds like something else will bring a reference of something simply because they like it...and expect me to make them sound like that. If you use reference material at all, the stuff you are comparing to that reference material must have the flavor and be in the same ball park or it's just never going to work. Sure, you can sort of grab the guitar "aura" of something or like I said, the basic sonics going on...but to me, it's near impossible to do this when the instrumentation is soo different from the reference material. So, I stay away from it and create my own sound from each thing I master.
 
Will I compare it to stuff after? Sure because I'm checking highs, mids and lows to see how I stack up. But most people really go after this reference material where in my opinion, it shouldn't be that intense. You do a quick check and then you move on. The object is to find your sound and identity using your instruments. This can't be done while listening to something else the way people believe it can be. Well, I guess I shouldn't say that....I should say "the way *I* believe it because it just doesn't work for me and it's aggravating trying to capture the vibe of something that doesn't even exist in the material *I* am working on. Hope this answers it at least from my perspective. :)
 
-Danny