peaks at -3 db won't increase the mastering 'Headroom' as it doesn't add dynamic range or change the crest. That 2.8 db will be raised without any limiting. That being said, My peaks of mixes are around -3 - -0.2. I normalize them to -0.2 to start the mastering process. No limiting involved with normalize. If my mix peak is at -3 and the RMS is -21, thats a difference of 18. the same mix normalized or volume raised at fader to peak at -0.2 would then have a RMS of -18.2 Still the same difference of 18. Only after that point you have to limit or face distortion. 5 dbs of limiting would have it up to -13 RMS a place where Dynamics still can live and breathe. We should all support dynamic range day! Louder mixes reduce the crest which is ok with dance/modern music/rock, but still my ears and my clients prefer the dynamics. Pre-mastered I like em -20 ish. Not big on music mastered to RMS -6. Usually distortion, sounds too compact, and lacks Depth.

What is the end game? We want our stuff to be aired, even though most won't be, and we don't consider the end game. Broadcasters have their own processing that happens and it seems to me that should be considered more than ones own needs.
 
I find it interesting that when I listen to music from the 60s and 70s that it sounds much warmer than the music of the 80s. Yet, the 80s is still pretty good. The 90s stuff starts to get louder and less warm but come the turn of the century all bets are off. My wife likes to listen to the new stuff and there's this song where the bass drum thumps along and the synths, as well as everything else, audibly duck under it. I'll never understand the purpose, even though I do, of side chaining. It just sounds bad.
 
That's why I brought up the new LUFS law. It's not hit the music industry yet but it should. There is talk that all this distortion inserted into tracks to make them louder is actually damaging our ears. I guess that's the future?

The LUFS law was made so about a year ago. There was a grace period of a year and it was a response to commercials being so loud as opposed to the programs on television. I don't know that if applies to radio broadcasting. There was mention of I-tunes and MP3s and the distortion inherent to that medium not to mention the distortion added to mixes by the industry.
 
Actually, I'm hoping someone knows what it all means and can explain it as I don't quite understand it myself. There is a thread, in the software forum I believe, with links so presentations on the subject. Apparently, they are trying to end the loudness wars. Amen to that I say.

My understanding regarding the iTunes thing is that iTunes radio will have its loudness correction turned on by default. Bob Katz wrote an article hoping that this could help to end the loudness wars since it will make squashed stuff sound worse once it is automatically adjusted to the same perceived volume as the non-squashed stuff..

I bought some contemporary music a few days ago from Amazon and it is clear that they were mastered with too much loudness. Even a classic jazz album had been remastered with too much loudness.  I checked them in Sound Forge 11 with its new loudness meter and it stayed at the top and showed clipping. They do not sound good even though the music is great. I want to slap the "engineer". 
 
I'm not happy about this at all. 

Sorry to hear that John. I agree with you. I mastered a Jazz album myself recently and I was very careful about this. It is possible to get the overall level reasonably loud but not smashing into flat lining or anythging like that.
 
Jazz needs to breathe and have some decent dynamic range. I listened to a few very nice contemporary Australian albums before I did it and measured the average rms level and it was nothing like -6 or -7 that I have mentioned above. More like -12 to -14. I just did the same.
 
The problem is that the wrong guys are doing Jazz mastering. They do not do their research and listen and compare to really nice mastered Jazz albums before they do it that is the problem. They make the mistake of just applying the same rock heavy approach to everything and they think that is good.
 
Many mastering engineers are pretty stupid actually and do not know a lot about mastering. It is important before you select a mastering engineer to get some of their work and check it out first. A good thing to do is to import their finished tracks into an editor and SEE what is going on. Often it is very revealing.
 

Jeff Evans
Sorry to hear that John. I agree with you. I mastered a Jazz album myself recently and I was very careful about this. It is possible to get the overall level reasonably loud but not smashing into flat lining or anythging like that.
 
Jazz needs to breathe and have some decent dynamic range. I listened to a few very nice contemporary Australian albums before I did it and measured the average rms level and it was nothing like -6 or -7 that I have mentioned above. More like -12 to -14. I just did the same.
 
The problem is that the wrong guys are doing Jazz mastering. They do not do their research and listen and compare to really nice mastered Jazz albums before they do it that is the problem. They make the mistake of just applying the same rock heavy approach to everything and they think that is good.
 
Many mastering engineers are pretty stupid actually and do not know a lot about mastering. It is important before you select a mastering engineer to get some of their work and check it out first. A good thing to do is to import their finished tracks into an editor and SEE what is going on. Often it is very revealing.
 

Excellent points Jeff. I for one view jazz with the same respect as classical music. What bugs me is who gave them the right to screw up really great music so it could sound like a pop song? 

Something that I like to do (I wonder how many mastering engineers do this) is to organise my mixing setup so that I can compare the pre mastered mix to the totally mastered mix at exactly the same volume. ie I lower the mastered version down by the amount I have increased its overall volume.
 
What this does once you remove the level difference is really expose what the mastering is actually doing to the overall sound quality of the mix. It is very revealing. Any distortions due to any of the mastering stages is very exposed now. It is so obvious. Often it can sound worse.
 
Sure the EQ and compression are doing their thing but what I am listening for here is any distortion that may be added especially in the limiting process. It forces you to rethink and continually back things off until you get the two things sounding great and clear.

Jeff Evans
Something that I like to do (I wonder how many mastering engineers do this) is to organise my mixing setup so that I can compare the pre mastered mix to the totally mastered mix at exactly the same volume. ie I lower the mastered version down by the amount I have increased its overall volume.

Agreed, it's a great technique. Wavelab 7 actually introduced a feature that does this - I think it's called "smart bypass."

Yes, by all means let's have the loudness police check our mixes and conform them to an accepted standard.  Just hope that standard embraces your own tastes and doesn't change over time.
 
And one can hope that intermodulation distortion will cause deafness in the millions that prefer it, along w/ the bands and producers demanding it.  That will leave a smaller yet more tasteful market.
 
@

I am totally amateur at this. I have little time to do a lot of reading. So most of what I learn is by doing. I used to wonder why I had to do certain things to get the mix right. After reading this thread (don't ask me where I found all that time) I see I am doing the right things in the end. So... back to learning.

Yeah. One trick I'm learning is to set the one track I want to be heard (usually main vocal) where I think it should be, then raise the others one by one around it so the 1st track isn't drowned out.

For what it's worth, -3dB peak after a full play is what I have always used when I master something here. Why do I use that particular number? I really can't tell you to be honest, but I tried it and others and felt better with -3 dB peak than anything else. The same as how I prefer -6dB peak going to disc. I tried lots of different input numbers....-6dB peak just seemed like it was the best for me and what I do.
 
When I worked with Bob Katz, -3dB was what he used as well (and what he also talks about in his book) so I was quite happy to know I at least had THAT part of it right. :) Anyone wanting to argue with a ME like Katz and his beliefs should mail him about it. :)
 
For what it's worth, I do NOT believe in up-sampling contrary to what people say regarding that. If the information is not there to begin with, I'm not adding anything helpful.
 
As for the 16/44 thing Konrad, that disturbs me. The reason being, the dithering process shouldn't be done by the client nor should it be skipped. Who's to say a client will use the right dithering to 16 bit? There are some that say you don't even need to dither. My take on that is....I've dithered because I've been trained that I'm supposed to. I do not hear a difference when dithering or just mixing a 24/48 down to 16/44 without dithering a thing. But I've heard other peoples material that had some stuff wrong with it because they didn't do something right or double dithered etc. It just shouldn't be handled by a client EVER in my opinion.
 
Would I NOT dither something? No, because the majority of my colleagues as well as those with credibility that have taught me, all said I should use dithering because it's the right thing to do. If dithering brought on artifacts that took down the quality of the audio I was working on, I'd not use it and would fight them to the death that they are out of their trees. As it stands, using it or not using it....I cannot hear a difference, so I use it because I'm supposed to and there are no artifacts. Stupid reason, I know...but I'm being honest and am not claiming to know everything.
 
When I was learning to master and Katz told me to dither, I dithered even though I couldn't tell a difference. When he told me "-3dB peak" my motto became "-3dB or don't send it to me".
 
When I was taught "do not put anything in the master bus because you are then attempting to do the ME's job...and you can ruin it" I asked clients not to add compressors and limiters to their master buses unless they truly knew how to use a compressor for glue and not as a limiter that would give me square blocks of audio.
 
When I was taught "record at 24/48 and process exactly the way the material was recorded via bit/sample, I stuck to my guns as well. I've found all of the above (whether they be right or wrong methods) to be rewarding to ALL of my clients as well as myself and my own material.
 
That said, whatever the mastering house you choose requests, is what you should ALWAYS follow. However, if you don't quite approve of something, don't be afraid to ask them why they want something a certain way. :) Good luck.
 
-Danny

Lynn

John
One thing I have found helpful in mixing is avoid raising faders and try to lower faders. Even if this means you lower all of them. If a track seems to low in volume don't raise the fader lower all the others. Of course after one has lowered all the faders then its OK to raise them as needed, individually. Another reason to use a Control Surface. I like to at least lower them by half. -5 to -10 on an MC
 
Start low and work your way up. 
 
 

I agree with this concept 100%.  You have infinitely more headroom going down than up.  Sometimes engineers forget that or didn't know it to begin with.

 
LOL! :-)
 
Post #8 of this thread suggests why it's "OK" to mix any way you want, why it is OK to forget misinformation, and why it is OK to simply not know misinformation to begin with.