Final mix has far too narrow dynamic range.

[Jarno]

@Discoworx

HAS more headroom and leaves one with the ability, to be flexible when it comes to final equing & mastering

Why do you need headroom for mastering?

• If you’re mastering in analog domain, just back off the gain knob of your first box.
• If you’re mastering in digital domain, just move your virtual fader/gain knob down.
  And there you go … you have headroom.

[Discoworx]

Split


This explanation should make you understand. please dont bend it, dont please continue. the following link explains in detail EXACTLY what I was explaining in my first post. to the letter!.

Split I just fail to see how you do not/will not understand the point I made in the first place, in the first post???
Maybe the engineer in you, has somehow misinterpreted my advice, but by your first reply, it totally railroaded this post. shame really. No matter how it goes, many articles,thesis,& papers give the same advice, I picked this up from Bob Katz about 14 yrs ago.


Level is Level…= Tosh.

Let us not continue this frivolity. Go here then you will understand what I meant. No More …and certainly no less. whatever I pointed out, is plain to see in the below article (complete with pics) it makes it easy NOT to misinterpret.

http://musicmasteringonline.com/members/content/view/242/32/


Jarno, while quoting me regarding headroom. This WAS my point. If you want headroom. you reduce the master Bus fader. To create Headroom for the final mastering stage. its explained in the article.

The reason we need headroom?..is In fact its explained on every Mastering House’s website…on every article I have ever read concerning mastering.

[Split]

we both agree that there should be some margin in the files level for further tinkering.

What I disagree with was the method of mixing to a reduced masterbus level from the start.

Simple.

[Discoworx]

It may not be to your agreeance. you have every right to disagree. but this technique of mixing to a reduced Master Bus, is certainly valid, I already explained I have mixed both ways…I found ,and so did Bob KAtz, and MANY other far more revered engineers than me…find that the “Balance” is better attained with the final file of a reduced Master Bus Mix…FAR more suited to mastering processes.

[Split]

@Discoworx

It may not be to your agreeance. you have every right to disagree. but this technique of mixing to a reduced Master Bus, is certainly valid, I already explained I have mixed both ways…I found ,and so did Bob KAtz, and MANY other far more revered engineers than me…find that the “Balance” is better attained with the final file of a reduced Master Bus Mix…FAR more suited to mastering processes.

Edited and peace be with you all

Bob Katz does not recommended mixing to a reduced master bus level, he recommends mixing to a calibrated monitoring environment and a calibrated metering system.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=15&ved=0CJoBEBYwDg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aes.org%2Ftechnical%2FdocumentDownloads.cfm%3FdocID%3D65&ei=7Q8PUMrZIqPO0QWyyYDoBA&usg=AFQjCNFNPyo_UxprmuTA7sGVa8vtN3th6Q&sig2=e_CxGjijW4wdgy6gJlkMJg

Please quote where he states that the master bus should be taken off unity.

[Jarno]

@Discoworx

Jarno, while quoting me regarding headroom. This WAS my point. If you want headroom. you reduce the master Bus fader. To create Headroom for the final mastering stage.

Sorry, but I have to disagree! If mastering engineer needs headrom, he/she can create it him/herself following my advice:

• If you’re mastering in analog domain, just back off the gain knob of your first box.
• If you’re mastering in digital domain, just move your virtual fader/gain knob down.

If mastering engineer doesn’t have equipment/software to handle this, he/she should find a job in another industry.

[The_Parlanchin]

Dear Discoworx and Split,
I am not capable of taking sides here! Though I suspect one of you an agitator!

Er, so, thankful though I am for your genuine, erudite and heartfelt opinions, it is now time for you two to take your love-making to a new thread. Go get sexy together elsewhere please.

Seriously though, your contributions have been helpful and illuminating to me and others, but need their own special thread now.

That said, I am grateful for your responses and have learnt from them.

Love and sloppy kisses

Parlanchin

[The_Parlanchin]

Dear Discoworx and Split,
I am not capable of taking sides here! Though I suspect one of you an agitator!

Er, so, thankful though I am for your genuine, erudite and heartfelt opinions, it is now time for you two to take your love-making to a new thread. Go get sexy together elsewhere please.

Seriously though, your contributions have been helpful and illuminating to me and others, but need their own special thread now.

That said, I am grateful for your responses and have learnt from them.

Love and sloppy kisses

Parlanchin

[The_Parlanchin]

Dear Discoworx and Split,
I am not capable of taking sides here! Though I suspect one of you an agitator!

Er, so, thankful though I am for your genuine, erudite and heartfelt opinions, it is now time for you two to take your love-making to a new thread. Go get sexy together elsewhere please.

Seriously though, your contributions have been helpful and illuminating to me and others, but need their own special thread now.

That said, I am grateful for your responses and have learnt from them.

Love and sloppy kisses

Parlanchin

[firestamper]

@Split

@Discoworx

It may not be to your agreeance. you have every right to disagree. but this technique of mixing to a reduced Master Bus, is certainly valid, I already explained I have mixed both ways…I found ,and so did Bob KAtz, and MANY other far more revered engineers than me…find that the “Balance” is better attained with the final file of a reduced Master Bus Mix…FAR more suited to mastering processes.

Edited and peace be with you all

Bob Katz does not recommended mixing to a reduced master bus level, he recommends mixing to a calibrated monitoring environment and a calibrated metering system.

Redirect Notice

Please quote where he states that the master bus should be taken off unity.

If you download this thing here split and read the manual which accompanies it, you will see how to use it correctly, you will see where discoworx is coming from and is correct.granted it is only a method practised by bob katz and is not written in the holy bible , and by the way he wasnt talking about calibrating his system, although that is one of katzs recommendations for all the cloth ears owt there.K-Meter by mzuther - Analyser / Monitor Plugin VST VST3 LV2

[Split]

@firestamper

@Split

@Discoworx

It may not be to your agreeance. you have every right to disagree. but this technique of mixing to a reduced Master Bus, is certainly valid, I already explained I have mixed both ways…I found ,and so did Bob KAtz, and MANY other far more revered engineers than me…find that the “Balance” is better attained with the final file of a reduced Master Bus Mix…FAR more suited to mastering processes.

Edited and peace be with you all

Bob Katz does not recommended mixing to a reduced master bus level, he recommends mixing to a calibrated monitoring environment and a calibrated metering system.

Redirect Notice

Please quote where he states that the master bus should be taken off unity.

If you download this thing here split and read the manual which accompanies it, you will see how to use it correctly, you will see where discoworx is coming from and is correct.granted it is only a method practised by bob katz and is not written in the holy bible , and by the way he wasnt talking about calibrating his system, although that is one of katzs recommendations for all the cloth ears owt there.K-Meter by mzuther - Analyser / Monitor Plugin VST VST3 LV2

The manual for the K-metering “System” points to the same document that I linked to.
At no point does it recommended mixing into the masterbus with the fader off unity
It recommends calibrating your monitors
It recommends using the K-weighted metering
Discoworx and I do not have a problem with each other
To everyones relef, this is the last I have to say on the subject.

[Richard_Herbert]

Have to say I agree with Split on this one.

As for the original post one suggestion would be to as matter of course turn down the VIs in a project before you even start arranging. In my experience they are normally at way too high a volume level when first loaded.

[Conman]

I use the master fader at unity on mixdown but I might have it set lower for my judgement and my ears but whatever I set it at (-6 to -10 then the first balancing stage instruments, usually the bass drum (and around it the kit and bass guitar) in my case will need to be at - 6 to -10 as well. I’ll check it at unity on the way through the mix but it isn’t essential until the end export.
The minus 6 to 10 is to allow for headroom after FX are added. It can go as low as -14 depending.
A simple method. But the OP stated that he understands that a forum is not a mixing school. But if he is going to mixing school eventually I’d suggest that copying some of the advice and links given here may be well handy in the future.

[The_Parlanchin]

Thanks to EVERYONE for their contributions. There have been some very useful discussions and links in this thread. I welcome the advice on mixing. Backing off the channel faders, some extra automation, and a bit of gating on the VST drums has improved my mix. But I’m not finished fiddling yet! Also, being especially careful about the interaction of the main bus level and maximizers seems to be crucial (yes I know I should mixdown then master but I’m learning all the time and “playing is learning” as they say at primary school). I’ll do it properly when I’ve finished experimenting!

Thanks again for all your fine contributions.

Parlanchin

[Stephen57]

@Jalcide

One best-practice is to track at K-20. “Track” meaning to record, lay down, or sequence (with VST’s). “K-20” being the level (often referred to as “loudness”) standard proposed by mastering legend, Bob Katz.

By ensuring your VST’s are only just pumping into the reds of the K-20 range spec – overall not too much lower, overall not going too much higher into the reds and not ever clipping past zero – you’re effectively limiting the dynamic range. This seems counter-intuitive when you want an open, wide dynamic range mix, but here’s the thing: by performing this gentle limiting / compression upfront (to K-20), means you need very little (sometimes VERY little) during mixing and mastering.

K-20 seems like a pretty wide dynamic range spec, on paper, but it takes a surprising amount of engineering (compression / limiting) to get stuff to “fit” into it. It’s not always easy. This is because plugins can produce extremely hot and wide dynamic range signals.

Also, if you track at K-20 the summing of those tracks are really going hit at about K-14. And, K-14 is an AWESOME target for most electronic music. It’s open, punchy, has great transients, good RMS and doesn’t take much to squash into a Beatport-ready mix if you really need to push it to a dance floor commercial release specification (“loudness war” arguments aside).

Also, K-14 is a great level for a lot of the newer modeled plugins (like Waves) as they are expecting that input level and are actually modeling distortion at the inputs if you go too hot.

So, work on each track to get it to “just fit” into the K-20 spec. You’ll be amazed at how little buss compression you’ll need (other than some light “glue”) to get you into a good, punchy, mastering-ready mix.

Finally, K-20 stems, when they’re analog summed with a bit of high-gain “crunch,” can sound amazing and by having the tracks at K-20, you’re giving the mastering engineer (if you go that route) a good amount of headroom to work with, too.

The Waves Dorrough meters have “20” and “14” settings that work really well and have some insightful ballistic characteristics that other meters don’t have, but are also very compatible with the K-Metering system. The Brainworx bx_meter has awesome K-20 / K-14 / K-12 meters in it. The bx_meters also have a very novel “floating dynamic range” indicator that shows the true dynamic range regardless of absolute peak – this would be very helpful to you. It’s essentially “crest factor,” for all intent and purpose.

If you can get between 9 and 14 db of dynamic range, that’s really open (rock music); a.k.a. “DR14.” EDM is about 7 to 12db of dynamic range that you want to target for what would be considered good, open dynamics; a.k.a. “DR8.” By comparison most Beatport tracks that are ultra-compressed are only going to be around 6db, 4db, or even down to even 3db of dynamic range! A.k.a “DR4.” DR4 is super crunched – essentially, no dynamics at all during the loudest parts. “DR8” is considered by many dynamic range nerds that study this as the upper-end “sweet spot” to hit – I’ve done a bit of research into this for EDM styles and agree that DR8 is pretty awesome – hot, but not overly squashed (Bob Katz would disagree, probably, and would think that’s still too hot – he shoots for K-12 as the least dynamic [loudest] a track should get). Here’s the link for more on on DR8: http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/challenge/

But again, the trick is to compress a bit (I recommend K-20) upfront, on each track, so that you don’t have to squash the whole thing on the buss.

(Sidebar: Another trick for getting a few more db of DR during mastering is to get the mastering compressor “pumping” nicely. Counter-intuitively, using a compressor like this, and at this stage, can actually add dynamics to the mix. I’ve seen hot EDM mixes at around DR6 get back into DR8 territory by simply getting a good pump on the 2 buss.)

James Wiltshire from Loopmasters talks about all this, the K-Metering system, K-14 to K-18/20 tracking. I’ve found K-20 works well, track by track, because your submixes (stems) are then going to be around K-14 when they get summed. So, K-14 is really the target for the pre-mastering-chain buss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WigF9IDdcQ

Here are some more references on the issue of dynamic range and fighting the “loudness war”:
http://turnmeup.org/
Loudness war - Wikipedia
http://www.dynamicrange.de/
http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk
the Bob Katz PDF: http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=65
a good loudness war example video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

An interesting rebuttal to the loudness war from soundonsound: 'Dynamic Range' & The Loudness War

I’ve tried them all and these are my personal favorite metering plugins:
bx_meter - Brainworx
http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=8713

Cheers.

Jalcide, thank you for a very helpful post and the links. A similar discussion was taking place in another thread and I found my way back here. Excellent discussion overall.

[Stephen57]

Of all the great advance from some here, one thing that has made a really HUGE difference for me has been calibrating my monitors to a known dBSPL.

Then, when lining up the system for K-20 (or anything else) with Pink Noise and with test tones, I know what I’m hearing because I can relate the sound being monitored to – the Equal Loudness Contours, the specs of my system, the timbers and volumes of the sounds I’m dealing with, and the room I’m working in. Really working on this has made a substantial difference in how I’m hearing things. Not just music, but sound itself.

This article outlines a basic seven step process for calibrating the monitors in your listening space.
Establishing Project Studio Reference Monitoring Levels – http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/monitor-wizard

Here’s an image of a K-20 Line Up, at 83 dBSPL, my selected level. Tone Generator sending signal to Sub-Master and then to Stereo Out.

Other possible useful references: Table chart sound pressure levels SPL level test normal voice sound levels pressure sound intensity ratio decibel comparison chart conversion of sound pressure to sound intensity noise sound units decibel level comparison of common sounds calculation compression rarefaction loudness decibel dB scale ratio factor unit examples - sengpielaudio Sengpiel Berlin

Anyway, I see a lot of posts about problems with “dynamic range” and “loudness” and wonder how many of those problems are the result of users simply not knowing where the monitoring levels actually are (SPL) and how that relates to the input and output signals, the line up, Cubase or any other system is dealing with.

Again, thanks for the good posts and references in this thread. I finally feel like I’m starting to hear in a much better way.

Good luck.