(27-10-2014, 12:02 PM)Olli H Wrote: In generally I prefer mixes with more dynamic, but in this case I'm not making statements.
These are different mixes and. I'm just comparing these two mixes in the same loudness level. I listeneded again, and I think that the first mix is more coherent soundwise.
- For example in the first mix drums and bass create better pair.
- And also I like more the vox panning desiciouns in first mix.
- In second mix there's more low-end, but I think that hi-end and low-end are better pair in the first mix.
- First one has better precence of the band.
- In the second mix the vox is more floating alone in front of band.
- To me neither mixes has harsh top end.
Normally I match references with TT dynamic range meter or bx_meter, but I'm not making it to science. Instead I'm constantly listening level matched versions against my mixes. In this case I didn't bring them into DAW, but I volume mateched them by ear with QuickTIme volume slider. As I'm doing this kind of level matching all the time when I'm mixing, I feel that I'm not so easily fooled my minimalistic differences in level.
I don't listen so much radio. I listen music mainly directly from CD, and CD player's are not doing level matching. So the stupid demand for loudness is not yet over. You (Dave) gave Alan a sportman's challange to make a more dynamic version. How about responding with another challange? As you're a professional mastering engineer, you're probably very familiar with how to make things loud. Ignorant clients demand that, don't they? So, after you've done your mix-version with -14 LUFS level, how about making a loud mastered version, where you try to match Alan's loudness level and quality. I know that I won't be able to do that.
I agree I think the first mix is the best out of the two.
(28-10-2014, 06:22 AM)takka360 Wrote: -14 ish lufs master
i only wish it was Alan.
it would be really nice to hear this mix in a true -14LUFS master. to do that, however, you'd need to go back into the mix and will most likely have to make some significant changes in your compression strategy overall before bringing it into the master process for finalizing. now this is assuming you can get enough dynamics available beyond -14LUFS to add the touches - it's a tough ask in this project because of it's inherent nature, vocals are especially troublesome of course. doing so will change the character of the mix entirely but it would be nice to hear what you can do here within the expectations of the European Standard for dynamic range; EBU R128 refers, chaps.
if anyone out there is serious about mixing, it can't be ignored.
what's happened here, is that you've merely reduced the gain by -6dB, so the song still retains the excessive compression and limiting attributes of the original v1 - nothing's changed there. that's why it still sounds over-processed and doesn't contain the sort of dynamics one would otherwise expect.
so, it's still -7.2LUFS Integrated on the meter, it's just lower in volume (i hate that word volume - audio has nothing to do with cubic meters!).
using the value of K14 on the k-meter, it's working mainly around 0 to +4. i'm wondering if you are confusing the K-meter with LUFS?
try and have a go at mixing a song to -14LUFS. if you are anything like me, you'll find it an interesting approach because it requires a change in mind-set. because you tend to mix hot, you'll probably find it more of a struggle than i am, and, of course, it is very genre sensitive. but it's the way the world is going.....thank goodness!
i'm still messing around with mine when i can find some odd moments. but it looks like i made a blunder on choice of some vocal mics, they just aren't blending well, no matter how much i try and persuade them with EQ. i'm not impressed with the quality of the tracking, i've got to be honest, given this stuff was tracked in 24 bit it didn't need to be so "hot" (some of the vocal tracking is clearly distorted from the signal chain). i suspect they wanted the output to be as loud as possible in order to make the microphones sound more impressive and to keep the noise floor as far away as possible!
28-10-2014, 09:48 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014, 09:50 AM by The_Metallurgist.)
sorry guy's, i'm out of sync with the discussion and missed Olli's reply....and most of the other posts following. it's wayyyyyyy tooo early in the morning!
thanks Olli for the overview of your loudness matching process. i respect the fact that you are aware of the issues of loudness when referencing, because it makes a big difference. i also think your commitment is reflected in the quality of your mixes.
i agree with Alan's post to some extent, about giving the client what they want, however, i find that many clients don't understand the implications of their requests. when i get an mp3 stereo file, for example and someone asks for a loud master, i start to sob uncontrollably! mp3? mastering? yeah, it happens.
during any Change Process, it's expected there will always be an intermediate period where chaos reins, where some are eager to comply, and others are eager to avoid. i can understand the commercial pressure a local radio station is under, in Pauli's example, because they operate in a very competitive business and want to keep their listeners. and of course, if they don't get the listeners, they don't get the advertising revenue and they are dead anyway. i have no doubt they will be forced to comply sooner or later otherwise they will lose their license i suspect, for repeat offending. i can understand their dilemma, because having to turn down a hot mix will make it sound dull, boring and totally lifeless (Alan's last file refers, by way of academic comparison) and nobody will want that. the radio station is damned if it doesn't, and damned if it does. the sooner everyone complies, the better. on that basis alone, loudness is an issue.
the reason the Industry can pass off distorted CD's to the masses (and their subsequent extra distorted lossy encodes) is because the masses don't know any better. remember it wasn't that long ago that people thought 128kbps was "CD quality" lol. it's clearly evident that the tide is turning.......and awareness is happening and the sloth that is The Market, is changing. like turning an oil tanker's direction at sea, it's a slow job. the Mother-in-law won't be any the wiser though but given many of them listen to the radio when it's not even tuned into the frequency properly, it's no wonder
i think the ultimate question we guys need to be considerate of, is "Where is this stuff going to be played?". in a club, loudness doesn't matter, in a car a dynamic song can be a nightmare. in the Cambridge-mt forum loudness impresses, that's for sure and poor mixes mastered loud, whether intentionally or otherwise, get a lot of respect. the Mastering Engineer does their best to make a song as transportable across all listening environments as possible. however, with more kids coming into the scene who make claims they can do mastering but haven't even started shaving yet, we are going to see and hear a lot of ignorance and less and less masters transporting across playback devices because it was done on a pair of 2-way KRK Rockets in someone's bedroom. but the web site looked credible!!!
i see my role as one of informing the client of the consequences of their request. what they do with that information is entirely up to them. but if they don't know much about audio, and many musicians don't because their time and expertise is in playing and refining their musicianship, they will not be empowered to make an informed decision. i don't even know many people who actually have decent hifi gear.......so their ears are not suitably conditioned to quality audio anyway. most kids Terms of Reference comes from being brought up listening to mp3 or other similarly compromised lossy format music, over seriously dodgy playback devices and ear plugs! these people will take any crap you feed them........and many will be listening to chart-topping, highly distorted, overly loud material. the Industry feeds, they buy it.
whoever the final intended consumer of our product, we all surely have a duty to give the best we can; in recording quality, the mix and in the subsequent master.
I don't think many people mix to -14,most will be just that level like radio stations etc a low master like mibe here.
I don't thing my mix is that over processed myself Dave.
Just checked out the pre-LUFS version, since I figured that was takka's original target. The balance is as effective as I've come to expect, but I do pine for a bit more thickness and sustain in this mix. Somehow the choruses don't seem to 'ring' in that kind of classic rock anthem way. I wonder whether its just a question of changing the emphasis a little more towards the pitched instruments and a little more away from the percussion/distortion components.
(28-10-2014, 02:06 PM)takka360 Wrote: I don't think many people mix to -14,most will be just that level like radio stations etc a low master like mibe here.
I don't thing my mix is that over processed myself Dave.
i'd agree with both your points.
i think if there's any over-processing, it's the vocal tending to push the limiter harder than the other instruments and i'd guess it's this that's causing the loss in the LUFS reading in the main. working this mix, the vocals really poke out a lot and it can be difficult taming them, especially if one is to try and retain transparency. homing in closely on the actual samples supplied of the vocals, it's quite obvious the signal chain has been working pretty hard and there's clear evidence of audible distortion. when they are tamed, they sound lost in the mix so perhaps this might be supporting my obs on that front... it's something i've been battling with in my mix, that's for sure.
one point for interest....24 bit doesn't require madly hot feeds during tracking because of the generous dynamic range that exists when working with this bit depth, nevertheless it feels to me like this is what they've done. anything that's cranked up sounds good, even though it might not be.
something this recent LUFS exercise has exposed my end, is the tremendous damage tape emulations have on dynamic range on the LUFS meter, so you guys who are employing such to achieve saturation characteristics, do take care.....because in getting the saturation, you're also losing a LOT of dynamics. for example, if the tracking already contains a generous amount of compression, a tape emu applied during the mix will have implications.
imagine the scenario...recording engineer adds compression, mixing engineer adds compression to the track and/or some tape saturation, then perhaps a compressor on the group buss for glue. the mastering engineer gets hold of it and adds yet more compression. the accumulation of all this stuff? it's so easy to forget about dynamics..
(29-10-2014, 11:43 AM)The_Metallurgist Wrote: imagine the scenario...recording engineer adds compression, mixing engineer adds compression to the track and/or some tape saturation, then perhaps a compressor on the group buss for glue. the mastering engineer gets hold of it and adds yet more compression. the accumulation of all this stuff? it's so easy to forget about dynamics..
Good post Dave,
One thing I like to add to it. One of the best and most natural compressors is the air between the source and mic. In old days and big studios today that is used quite much. But in budget studios everything is miked too close to prevent leakage. And to tame that signal one must use quite many tricks mentioned in your post.
Also it could be said that the best de-esser is the air between mic and singer. Closer the mic, more unnatural are the esses.
Here's the conclusion from it from the page 8:
====
We therefore recommend that record companies provide broadcasters with radio mixes. These can have all of the equalization, slow compression, and other effects that producers and mastering engineers use artistically to achieve a desired “sound.”
What these radio mixes should not have is fast digital limiting and clipping. Leave the short-term envelopes unsquashed. Let the
broadcast processor do its work. The result will be just as loud on-air as hypercompressed material, but will have far more punch, clarity, and life.
====
it's wayyyyyyy tooo early in the morning! 
