Loudness wars, call me France cause I am waiving the white flag

   For reference purposes I have ripped songs from couple of commercial Cd's (not copies but the store bought disc) and found that a lot of the new hard rock stuff is phased all over the place and mastered right to 0.0 db.  I can't believe how brickwalled commercial stuff is that we tend to compare our stuff to and then if you add a limiter to your own stuff even if you leave it more dynamically intact than the big boys do, you still get grief from our forumites when you post in the songs forum?   I am not a fan of destroying music but by the same token when people are so accustomed to listening to overcompressed/over limited music not doing so makes the music I produce lack that punch.   My own band members are like "can't you get it louder?"  
   
   I am still leaving them with more dynamics and wave form that doesn't look like a broomstick on it's side but in the style of music I am doing it has got to compete!?   In these commercial releases I can still hear the softer phrases get softer and the impact of heavy accents so there is some dynamic range there (but you couldn't tell by looking at them?).
I know you guys may not know some of these bands but I started checking a bunch of stuff after noticing this...
The band Rise Against- 0.0db and phase issues everywhere, Unwritten Law- same thing, less phase issues, Skindred- hard brickwall.  311 - not as bad as some but still up there, Green day- same stuff.
 
    So how can I compete without joining the club?   It's like trying to be competitive in sports without doing the steriods that most of them use (not bashing athletes but the analogy works) .... yeah, it's not good but it is what is, so do you want to compete or not?

It's a good analogy.

But, I think the athletes learned how to do it from the Stones.

No Problem.

I'm not a French national anyway ! But I married one !!!

Keef the "Human Riff" of the Stones ?
Stone(s) Temple Pilots ?
Stone(s) Roses ?

Cheers,
Jerry

If you're in a commercial enterprise, then to a certain extent you have to give the people what they want.

If you're an artist, you can do whatever you want.


Perhaps in the future all releases will be issued in 2 versions:

1. Hyper-compressed for those who seem to want that (for reasons I can't fathom).

2. Compressed only to the degree that the music demands, which varies from none at all to "a little", depending on the genre.


If you just try to release #2, I'm convinced it's a losing battle at this point. So a change in tactics is necessary. 

I think that if the masses could hear both versions side by side, and had the use of the "volume control" explained to them, a great many of them would choose #2.

The loudness war is perpetuated by the need to be as loud as everyone else in order to be competitive. However, many indie artists have discovered that dynamics serves to distinguish them from the pack. I believe this could become a widespread trend (seriously, it could happen; all we have to do is portray it as a revolt against the establishment).

I predict (while admitting my prognostications have never been 100% accurate - I really thought hip-hop would be a short-lived fad, for example) that heavily-compressed music will eventually come to sound dated. Future music fans will think of it as a quaint quirk of their parents' music. Autotune yodelling, too, will go the way of 80's drums that sounded like Storm Trooper laser guns, big hair and spandex jumpsuits.

So rather than surrender, declare victory and consider yourself part of the vanguard of a new movement. Don't say you're out to restore dynamics to music, sell it as a new innovation. In 20 years you won't want your grandkids to listen to your music and have them dismiss it as "so 2012!".

Is it even that important to be louder than the rest these days as it was before the internet took over? By that I mean, it's important to be loud on radio, but when people listen on their computers and iPods, is it really that necessary anymore to hyper-compress?

The great joy of accepting that you won't ever make money in the music business is to be able to make music any way you want. I leave mine at 1970s levels of dynamics and anyone doesn't like it, they can kiss my frilly cravat.

At to loud on the radio, it doesn't matter. The radio will already hyper compress it and some folks have argued that their compression will make already hyper compressed material sound worse, not better.

Chuck, here are some things to keep in mind brother.

1. Listen to what you said up there. ^ You're basically going to tweak you music to sound good for earbuds. I'm sorry brother, most of the modern stuff sounds like absolute garbage on real monitors. As a matter of fact, it makes me think low of the big names signing their names to this stuff in all areas. From the artists to the engineers to the mastering guys. They all have their heads so far up their butts they can's see or think clearly. And, once it gets pushed to the masses, they don't care that music is taking a quality decline. Listen to what you said in your post. You're going to join 'em and continue to make music that is loud that pretty much sounds mediocre at best in earbuds bro. Instead, why not BE the furture instead of ride the coat-tails of today? All it takes is one person like a GaGa to do something people love, and the whole trend part changes.

2. I'll put any of my mixes/masters up against any super loud mix. Yes, I will not have the level they achieve at say 3 on the volume knob. However, near 5-7, the loud mix will not get louder. All it will do is distort and sound like absolute garabge. My mix will keep on going louder and louder while it passes right on by the distorted mix while my mix will maintain clarity and dynamics.

3. Do you really think music lovers are firing up mp3's comparing which is the loudest? LOL!! They could care less man. If they like a tune, they like it...if they don't, they don't. Why not make it a great listening experience that has a few bumps in the road? Here we go...the ultimate scenario.

Listening to the loud ultra compressed stuff is like riding a roller coaster on a track that is a straight line. Like...riding a train on a straight-a-way that never turns. Oh joy...let's ride the rollercoaster! And the tracks look like this ============== How boring would that be?

Isn't it better when your on one that has tracks that look like this? _-_===^^\/=======\/\/\/\==========

That's what music should be like. A nice rollercoaster ride with ups, downs, twists, turns and straights while creating moods, atmospheres and inspiration. Ok, not every song needs to be like that...but it's nice to have a variety that shows you're not a one-trick-pony. Ever notice how well a good ballad or even a power ballad goes over at a show? Why? First off, you need the right tune...but secondly, it's a change in dynamics that the people welcome also. There's only so much constant loudness can do for a person before they get fatigue. 

As for loud mixes that common people can do.....it starts with having the mix right from the start. You can't just turn any mix into a super loud mix that works. There are certain things you need to do to nail it the right way. Some tools work better than others....so the tools make a difference too. But the mix has to be just right at the mix stage before you can go nuts with making it loud. One without the other and you're left with sonic distortion.

My final thoughts....you write good tunes Chuck. Very modern and acceptable. Be the future man, don't live in the present and degrade your music for the sake of what sounds good in ear buds. Someone like you can make a difference. Sure, make your music loud and aggressive...but let it breathe and let it be so clear that when someone wants it loud, turning up the volume knob gets them that while you maintain dynamics and clarity. Trust me when I tell you....you end up with a better product at the end of the day that is worth more than just how loud it may be. :)

-Danny

Oh I know you're not stomping anything bro. I just don't want to see you get to that point because you're trying to keep up with what the national acts are doing.

I gave your tune a listen...the limiting is definitely affecting your song. Here's the dead give-away and how you can tell. Listen to your snare drum. There are times when it hits without the rest of the music sort of....like the in between hits. Then, it hits full bore with the music. You'll notice it sort of hides a bit with all the stuff in all at once. This tells me right there that the limiter is doing some squashing.

You may not be going loud, but you also have to remember....when you set a cap limit on your output and raise that threshold to make it louder, it's compressing at the cap. So for example....for you to be as loud at -.2 as you would at 0dB, you'd need to jump on the threshold a bit more than you would if your cap was at 0dB. So for you at -.2, you are compressing more. As soon as your mix hits that cap and you add more of the threshold in the limiter to make it louder, you're "square boxing" automatically.

But I definitely hear your snare suffering in that tune as well as some other stuff that seems to be a bit less clear than it should be. Some lows and low mids that need some attention. When you have little inconsistencies like that, the limiter can actually make them sound worse than they are and you're better off killing the limiter. Listen to that mix without the limiter and listen to it closely. Pay close attention to each instrument in how it is clear without any muffle going on. Then kick in that limiter and what you've done is....replaced clear with loud and muffled. Try it...you'll hear what I mean and then cringe and come back and say "ok, you were right Danny...but darn, now how do I fix this?!" :)

-Danny 

bottom line is...

you cannot be expected to match levels achieved by professional mastering engineers.

not without paying a sonic price.

  I am sure it's possible however unlikely it may be for someone like myself to achieve right now...  I have been recording  (other than 4 & 8 track tascam units) for about 2 years now.   
  
   Though in the same breath I have to say I think my work now is coming out better than the record I put out with my last band recorded in a fairly high end studio, engineered, mixed, and mastered by a guy who's been doing it 30+ years and uses both full analog and his newer protools rig.   Back then I paid $60/hr to get good results. 
    When I decided to got it on my own, the sonic price I paid was far lesser results for years until I improved some.  Now, I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous... I CAN get good results, though the price I pay is way more time invested to get it there than it would take you fellas to do the same. Also because my ears and skills are improving fairly rapidly I know as excited as I am about todays improvements, I will want to redo it next week (when I am better than I am now) because I constantly feel like what I did last week sucked comparitively.    But even if I left this song alone as it is right now, I am happier with it than my last CD recorded by a respected pro.

   Eventually, I will figure out the proper methods and tools to master better and at that point I will think this mix sucks I am sure.  So be it I suppos, as long as I am enjoying the journey.

Dean I would agree with you for sure if the music stayed at the same rms level for the whole tune and the peaks were only 6 or 7 db above that but that does not have to be the case. There is a good argument in this SOS article that in fact we have not lost any dynamics at all but rather retained them.

http://www.soundonsound.c.../articles/loudness.htm

All that is happened of late is that the loudest parts of the music have just got louder but the quieter parts in the music can still exist to give some relief. Of course this does depend on the music having some dynamics in the first place. The last couple of rock CD's I have mastered of late have had all the tracks that were very quiet in parts. Very powerful. I wonder if Danny has experienced that as well. Plenty of breathing space in the music.

I don't push every style of music loud either. For the jazzier and acoustic stuff you can afford to go a bit lower as bitflipper mentions and it can still sound very loud even when not pushed as hard as the heavier styles. In fact the quieter the music is or the lesser the instrumentation etc the louder it seems to be almost with very little limiting involved.

ChuckC


Ok Danny, I smell what yer steppin' in....  Haha (j/k)

I can hear what you mean so yep, here's where I ask: What do you do?
The obvious is back off the input on the limiter, but then I run into the guys whinning that it isn't in yer face enough...  So is there another way?

Other than what you mention... I am now hearing a little real end fuzz (or distortion) that I didn't hear initially. I believe it's on one of the guitars and kinda stands out to me like white noise on it.  I will find it and kill it when I do.  I'd love to know what you think of the tones/mix otherwise bro!

LOL @ smellin' what I'm steppin' in!!!! Priceless! :) What do I do.....well first off, the mix I create must stand on its own before it's even mastered. I never rely on any mastering techniques or "fix it in the mastering" tricks. I can post one of my songs pre and post master and you'll hear it's not drastically different. That's when you know you're on the right track. Way too many guys put so much into the mastering part that their tune suffers because the mix wasn't quite right. All the limiter is doing at that point, is amplifying the sound of @ss. LOL! And lemme tell ya, there's nothing worse than the sound of @ss....especially when it gets delivered in hoagie form. :) LOL!
 
So the first thing to do is really hone in on the mix. If the mix itself is not "in your face enough" a limiter is not going to solve that problem. In your face means just that....right up front and in your face. If something isn't in your face, you may be affecting it too much...you may be compressing it too much...and you could be totally losing your punch coming out of the gate.
 
I've had two recent clients send me mixes in Sonar to work on. Both of them are pretty good engineers that didn't know just how good they really were. The problem with both of them was exactly the same. Over-kill with compressors, busses, effects sends going into busses, triple compression, it was just....well, let me say, incredible? Incredible because I can't believe the pains of hell these two guys went through to get the results they got. I didn't approve of how they went about it, but they did deliver ther goods. But now that I got them straightened out and their buss count will not resemble their track count, they'll be faster with their mixes as well as more honed in on where they should be.
 
Compression is the death of people, Chuck. It truly is. The main reason for that is because people read a lot. The net is all about reading and free information. The problem with that is, when this stuff that is shared comes from credible sources, sometimes the information is more hype than help. Parallel compression, mid-side, all this stuff...it's not something you "just do" or "include for the sake of". It can actually degrade a project if you're not sure what to do.....and it can REALLY degrade a project if the project in question doesn't need that sort of push.
 
For example, parallel compression in my opinion would be a waste on a 70's type classic rock sound. That material is clean and very unforgiving. You either perform it right and execute it right, or you fail....period...end of story. If you use some of these tricks of today in a project like that, it makes the instrumentation sound funny because that particular instrumentation in a classic rock situation is NOT sonic like what we have today. So you pretty much kill the original vibe and replace it with this thing that is meant to process a different array of instrumentation.
 
So at the end of the day, less is more as well as getting your mix to stand on its own without any mastering. When you listen to a good mix before you master it...it should have no rumbles or mid range congestion....no harsh high end....you should be able to crank it pretty good before it distorts....that snare crack should be heard at all times...if things are not up front enough, kill some effects, tweak your compressors...check for release times that may be making things resonate too much etc.
 
Now when you master, you have this good mix to help you with the mastering. As soon as that snare drum takes a back seat and no longer has the crack it had in the original mix, you're losing the battle. As soon as you hear changes in the material when you have less instruments going on and then the full bore comes in and things disappear, you're losing the battle. I don't look at or worry about RMS. I truly don't. I'll scan it when I'm done mastering something to see where I ended up, but I never even look at it because to be honest, none of it matters to me and I really don't care. I don't master or gauge my material to be based around that. I know that just about every ME does this...but to me, I don't think it's that important. I mix and master for the song. Not for a meter, not for an audience, not for a specific sound, but for the song. I close my eyes on certain parts while tweaking so I don't physically see what something is doing. It's a feel thing and I'd rather feel the mix than be a meter watcher.
 
I've used this analogy on here once I believe...but let me put it like this. Mastering is like driving a car to me. Some of us have lead feet....some obey the law, some drive a bit too conservative. Those of us with lead feet, sort of fall into a driving style. You operate that car pretty much at speeds you feel you can control because you've been driving like this for many years. Ok, you still may not be able to control that vehicle at the speeds in which you drive when a deer runs out at you or something....but you pretty much drive the same way all the time. The key there though...is to never operate that vehicle at a faster speed than you or that vehicle can handle. And, if you are not in a vehicle that is capable of handling your driving style (say your wife's car or mini-van etc) you're not going to drive that the way you may drive a Mustang GT or something. You know your limits with each vehicle even though you may drive a bit with a lead foot and are a more aggressive driver.
 
The same when you master and use a limiter. Create for the song...the song is the vehicle you are operating. On some songs, you treat them like an affordable luxury car like a Lincoln and obey the laws. Other songs may be like my Corvette and you can really jump on them and be a bit more aggressive with the limiter. Then, another song comes down the pike like Jeff's recent project with that client that just sent him incredible prints that didn't need much work. So in this situation, Jeff was more a high end detailer. The guy that polished, waxed up and might have done a little buffing to the song keeping within the laws.
 
He chose a PSP Xenon limiter because he needed something clean and pristine that would polish the material like the best wax money could buy. He may have done the client an injustice using a limiter like Boost 11 because it is NOT as clean....however, Boost 11 in the right situation for something that would need that aggressive type of limiter would be the right call. So it's really all about knowing the limits of "your vehicle" that dictate where you should go, what you should do, and how how aggressive or passive you should be. Of course this is just my opinion, but this is how *I* go about making calls like this. It always starts with how good or bad a mix is though.
 
For some mixes, I literally have allowed my limiter to go to -0dB. Why? Well, it just sounded right for the song. Other times, I'll use -.10 or whatever. It depends on the material. I never fire something commercial up and compare how loud I am verses that song. I have no problems competing with commercial recordings. As a matter of fact, and I honestly do not mean this to sound like bragging, but I can make them better. I can go just as loud and never lose the clarity and I will not have the distortion artifacts. But, you can't just do this with ANY mix. It has to be a mix that has all the right stuff going on first. So keep some of this in mind brother because it's really important in my opinion.
 
As for your song....I dig all your songs man. You have a modern sound with a hook....that's all I need really. If you get too technical, you can lose the common folks. You have good stuff going on all the time....good tones and your stuff always makes for a good listen. I think you've come a long way since I heard your stuff for the first time. So that's a good thing. If we compared your 2 years of doing this verses mine...let's just say your 2 years were equal to my 6 years. But then again, I had a totally different set of tools and I didn't have anyone I could talk to and the net was not a part of my world yet. We also didn't have all these ITB synths etc. You had to mic everything because anything lined in sounded horrendous. So I struggled on my own for years before I got something I was truly proud of but I'm glad I did. What I picked up during that time was priceless. Then again...it's just like you said it....you're proud of something one day, years go by and you listen to that mix you were proud of, and it's not all that because you have a better understanding as to what's really going on, ya know?
 
Anyway....that's just my take on it, Chuck. Good luck with everything and keep up the great work! :)
 
-Danny
 
 

Danny, one of these days I'm going to dig out ALL of your posts and put them in a book.

Not so. I can match levels achieved by professional mastering engineers without paying any sonic price.  

that's strictly a matter of opinion.
can you somehow prove that statement?


and i find it disingenuous to come into a (mostly) amateur home recording forum, and try to pass off the ability to achieve clean levels using software OR hardware that is any less the high end quality of the high end mastering housed.


it gives people the wrong impressions.


If you wanted to test your opinion, you would have to post some examples of similar styles of music, both mastered by you, and a similar professional release, and actually deeply compare the two side by side.


and then, maybe if you are extremely talented, it's a wash in the end.


but too many people seem to be proliferating the idea these days, that their home-style mastering attempts are TRULY equal to that of a serious mastering house, and i don't believe that to be true.