How loud do you make the quiet songs?

I've got two quiet songs... a lot of softly played piano, some cello and a voice.

Should I just crank it up to average -14dBFS RMS or do I take a chance and let it sit in it's own place and hope the peeps will turn the volume knob up?

:-S






The thing is, both songs have passages that do feature a full instrumentation: Trap kit, Bass, Guitar, 8 vocals, and the Piano and the Cello. So those sections are full of energy.

It's difficult to know how loud to make the quiet passages without diminishing the impact of the loud sections.

I wonder if I'll ever know for sure?





best regards,
mike

As long as the loud parts (full band) are not clipping and in the soft parts you can hear it clearly.......

As you listen to it start to finish.... do you have to grab the volume knob or strain to hear it clearly? If so...bad mix. 

This is where the proper application of compression will save your butt. 

You want the "quiet parts" to be compressed a bit so they have more volume and the peaks that are in those parts are tamed..... then in the louder parts where other instruments come in..... again, the peaks not exceeding 0db are important. 

The only song I can think of as a reference is this: http://www.soundclick.com...34&songID=10369122   It has quiet parts and parts that are more full.  The trick was to get it to the point the listener didn't need to ride the volume control throughout the song.

It was a while back and I don't remember all the particulars of this but I believe I used compression on the TRACK level of the instruments that were playing solo in the quiet parts, and envelopes on them as well as envelopes on the "louder" instrument tracks. 

Between the compression (not crazy compression.... just mild) and the use of envelopes and taking my time mixing it, I was able to achieve the desired result.



remix of the same song just for grins: http://www.soundclick.com...34&songID=11386873

Practice and experience Mike there are no substitutes.  Keep going and you'll get there. You can do it.

It would help if perhaps you stopped riding the faders while tracking, you'd then hear the intended relationship between the louder and softer parts and be able to satisfy yourself with a more informed choice.

I love the enthusiasm that something like a new playroom can bring, it can make you think everything you touch from now on in is going to be a hit.  Don't let anyone try to dull that for you.  Hold on to your dreams.

HTH

That is such a beautiful song Herb.

I really liked the melody work and the harmonies you went for.

I found it interesting, in the context of this discussion, that the remix seemed to have more dynamic range than the first example.

Both sounded nice and I think the extra ambiance in the remix was a nice addition.


best regards,
mike

Simpler tunes or ones with little instrumentation will always sound louder even if they and the loud ones are peaking the same on a VU meter. I have found from exerience if you make the quieter tunes about 2 to 3 db less than the louder ones you should be about right.

So if your louder tunes are just making -14 db rms then the softer ones need to hit about -16 to -17 dB rms and they should sit well with the others.

The same applies to mastered tracks. If after mastering the louder tunes are averaging around -7dB rms then I make the simpler instrumentation ones average around -10/-9 db rms.

When a full arrangement comes in after a softer simpler tune then you want it to kick a little when it comes in as well. Keeping the simpler instrument ones down a little enables that to happen nicely. Also when they are down a little compared to the fuller tunes they seem to sit just nicely and do not appear to be softer at all but rather the same. If you allow the simpler tunes to reach the same level on a VU as the heavier ones then they appear too loud for those.

Mike, I have a serious question.  How can I possibly know if you are ever asking a serious question? 

At this point I would never respond to any question regarding recording, mixing or anything DAW related simply because of your constant snarking posts.

Even in this one, if this is truly a real question and not an attempt to laugh at people who answer your question with an honest opinion but completely "clueless" in the world according to Mike, how do I know the difference?

That's why I either respond with a SNARK award, or simply don't respond to ANY of your posts simply because I am guessing that you're just posting to get a laugh at those who disagree with your opinions.

And I would prefer to have an honest open discussion with you than to read any post from you which is just an attempt at smug humor at my (and anyone else's) expense.

So how can we tell when you're honestly wanting to know others' opinions and when you're just making fun of everyone who responds?  Or should we just assume all of your posts are snarky?

it all depends on range,i like everything in a close range but i also like to retain the dynamics of a song.
i then chose the range and stick with it threw the whole song.
ill split piece up and boost them so the vesres match,the bridges match,exc.but also finding that thin line of balance between regulation and dynamics.

what im saying is try to keep it up in their faces but dont lose the feel of the song.
many mistakes have been made in master,mixing ballads,ive heard great tunes ruined by unexpeirenced mixes(including my own).

Beagle


Mike, I have a serious question.  How can I possibly know if you are ever asking a serious question? 

At this point I would never respond to any question regarding recording, mixing or anything DAW related simply because of your constant snarking posts.

Even in this one, if this is truly a real question and not an attempt to laugh at people who answer your question with an honest opinion but completely "clueless" in the world according to Mike, how do I know the difference?

That's why I either respond with a SNARK award, or simply don't respond to ANY of your posts simply because I am guessing that you're just posting to get a laugh at those who disagree with your opinions.

And I would prefer to have an honest open discussion with you than to read any post from you which is just an attempt at smug humor at my (and anyone else's) expense.

So how can we tell when you're honestly wanting to know others' opinions and when you're just making fun of everyone who responds?  Or should we just assume all of your posts are snarky?

Reece I'm sorry to have to point this out, but remember how Jessie Sammler had some of us duped as to what he really was?

It's a similar thing mate.

It's kind of like somebody waffling on about drama thinking there is a similarity between it and the making and producing of music.  There is of course some similarity there but it's not the same thing.

There is definitely some knowledge on an engineering level of how audio works here but none of it has ever been successfully applied to making music to any standard of broad appeal.

The man doesn't even know how tuning a guitar works correctly yet he pitches himself as a connoisseur of fine instruments, he's confirmed here in the last week he hasn't got a clue how to record a singing performance, yet he castigates with remorseless ill intent others far more capable than he inferring that in some way they are dim-witted.

In short I'd say he's hood-winked many of us for a long time.  It all fell apart for me in the last few weeks.

I'm just glad I never sent any money.

It's been really disappointing for me as I grew quite fond of what I thought he was until I found that he didn't have the size of personality to apologize to somebody where I'd judged him on my own principles to be completely out of line.

Jonbouy

Beagle


Mike, I have a serious question.  How can I possibly know if you are ever asking a serious question? 

At this point I would never respond to any question regarding recording, mixing or anything DAW related simply because of your constant snarking posts.

Even in this one, if this is truly a real question and not an attempt to laugh at people who answer your question with an honest opinion but completely "clueless" in the world according to Mike, how do I know the difference?

That's why I either respond with a SNARK award, or simply don't respond to ANY of your posts simply because I am guessing that you're just posting to get a laugh at those who disagree with your opinions.

And I would prefer to have an honest open discussion with you than to read any post from you which is just an attempt at smug humor at my (and anyone else's) expense.

So how can we tell when you're honestly wanting to know others' opinions and when you're just making fun of everyone who responds?  Or should we just assume all of your posts are snarky?

Reece I'm sorry to have to point this out, but remember how Jessie Sammler had some of us duped as to what he really was?

It's a similar thing mate.

It's kind of like somebody waffling on about drama thinking there is a similarity between it and the making and producing of music.  There is of course some similarity there but it's not the same thing.

There is definitely some knowledge on an engineering level of how audio works here but none of it has ever been successfully applied to making music to any standard of broad appeal.

The man doesn't even know how tuning a guitar works correctly, he's confirmed here in the last week he hasn't got a clue how to record a singing performance, yet he castigates with remorseless ill intent others far more capable than he.

In short I'd say he's hood-winked many of us for a long time.  It all fell apart for me in the last few weeks.

I'm just glad I never sent any money.

I literally laughed out loud at these! 
 
back to responding to your post, tho, I really hate that if it's true.  I guess I haven't yet accepted that's what's really going on here.  I know in the past I have read really good well thought out posts from Mike regarding how equipment works and differences between types of equipment.  I really hate to place Mike in the same category as Jessie.  It just seems wrong to me.  But maybe I'm just wearing rose colored glasses and have yet to open my eyes.  everything, to me, up to this point has been reading Mike as being "smug" and feeling like he's "superior" to everyone else and that's why he posts his snarky comments just to laugh at everyone who responds because everyone answering is beneath him.
 
But if he really is a "Jessie" then that's all part of the charade and means he has been better at his craft than Jessie was because I could see through Jessie with the first couple of posts.  Mike - I still want to believe in. 
 
Mike, I truly hope this is not true.  I don't want to believe it.  but I'll be thinking on this...

Mike, I truly hope this is not true. I don't want to believe it.

Me neither, I'm truly gutted by it as I've always been prepared to stand by him, even when doing that was not seen as a popular choice.