The "Loudness War"

[cassius987]

But yeah, it does irritate me as someone who tried to record a really solid album and found, to his dismay, that LOUDNESS was a factor these days. By the end of the mixing we had gotten as much gain as we could out of it and it still didn't quite compare to contemporary records. In other words it was good music and a good mix that was not LOUD enough to get famous.

This is why proper mastering is just as, or more important, than a good mix. When you have all of the record levels and mix levels maxed to capacity, you have no room left to work in the mastering stage. It's like a preamp control, once you turn it up past a certain point, all of the compression and EQ in the world will not clean it up, but will just decrease the dynamic range and raise the noise floor when trying to boost the track in the mix. This is part of the reason that bass and acoustic instruments are DI'd in to the board at the initial stages of recording, so they can tweak the jones out of the mic'd signal and blend the full range one back in to give the dynamic range and clarity back.

Producers and engineers are in a position of immediate gratification for the artists these days. If the premastered mix isn't slammin'/thumpin'/bumpin'/killin' to the point of distortion for the artists, they may get(seen it)tempermental about how the people recording have no idea of their vision and take their biz elsewhere. Most artist have no idea of how the recording process works, and get annoyed at how long the process takes. Too many want to hear radio quality finished products off of the board mix, and think folks don't know what they're doing if they don't get it. So, in order to keep the "next big thing" happy, they give them what they want. By the time it gets to the mastering house(if it gets there at all)there isn't much room to do anything that doesn't detract dynamic range and increase listening fatigue.

A lot of engineers are also DI'ing electric guitar, as many programs allow what's known as reamping to the recording process. This means they can take the clean, straight signal and run it back out to a variety of amps or simulators to scroll through multiple tone options without the player having to do a million takes of a track. This is how the pros get a Marshall JCM800, Vox AC30, and a Fender Twin all playing the same part simultaneously in one take, where they are mixed together accenting the best of each to make one huge guitar track. The levels have to start low in order to make this work, and the dynamic range must be preserved or you shoot yourself in the foot.

The introduction of samples and loops in to music has really contributed to this syndrome, as they are already mixed and mastered pieces of audio, and to try to integrate them in to your music using the same guidelines as conventional instruments, you run in to major level and "percieved loudness" problems. Sort of like when you overdub a guitar over a cd on to a computer, never really sounds quite right. Most think that compressing the **** out of it and then boosting it back up will tame the beast, but it just ends up causing that "pumping" effect, which is then tried to be compensated for with eqs and limiters. Now you have pretty much killed any real dynamic range, so an enhancer or maximizer is used to try to bring life back in to it, which again shifts the eq curve and further kills dynamic range. From there it's just a series of trying to hide the lack of dynamics in bass boosts and max mixing which in the end yeilds a loud, unlistenable product.

So, unless actually recording to tape, record slightly below the red, mix at the red, and let a professional mastering house do what they get paid to do. Any maximization of volume can be done there without compromising dynamics.

We let the owner/engineer talk us into having him do the mix and the master. Probably a big mistake.

[whojamfan]

Had that happen on the worst album I ever made. The levels were so hot and instruments bled through it was barely listenable. The guy who did it insisted he was a pro and swindled the label in to believing he knew what he was doing. We went along with it knowing it was probably BS, and sure enough, it was. We finally managed to somewhat salvage it, but it barely sounds better than a 4 track demo made in your kitchen. No amount of mastering had any effect on it, in fact, the mastering house told us after 40 minutes of trying that there was nothing they could do with it. This is a prime example of why you don't want to record all crazy loud in the red, as you have nowhere to go once you have tracked. School of hard knocks on that one.

Exercise your right to bear arms and put a bullet in the idiot who tells you he can "fix it in the mix". If it isn't laid down right, you can't fix it, unless you are some computer expert cutting and pasting soundwaves. Save time and money, just redo the track or punch in. You will always know you didn't nail it, even if no one else does.

Also, if I may add, do not have the same person mix and master, as they are too close to it. Trust me on this one, you really want a person who only does mastering master your project. You get what you pay for, and you pay dearly for a **** recording and substandard final product.

I hope to save anyone some of the heartaches I've gone through in studios with this info, and the better informed we are going in to these places, the better our music will sound. Knowing your stuff will save you some money as well.

[Clint]

Had that happen on the worst album I ever made... it barely sounds better than a 4 track demo made in your kitchen.

All you had to do is say that it was supposed to sound like that. You would have been the next darlings of the lo-fi underground. Rolling Stone, Spin and Paste would have all done feature articles on your band and given you four star reviews.

[whojamfan]

Oddly enough, people like it, saying how raw it sounds. Ya just never know.

[winston]

That album is odd Mike in the sense that I can hear the sonic nuances that aren't really there. Perhaps it's just because I expect them to be there.

[whojamfan]

That album is odd Mike in the sense that I can hear the sonic nuances that aren't really there. Perhaps it's just because I expect them to be there.

I sampled those Brian

[winston]

They must have been done subliminally then............... I swear I can hear what was supposed to be there.

[just_bassics]

This all goes back, as far as I know, to record producers wanting their records to be the loudest one on the stack or in the jukebox. To me, dynamic range is one of the most important and expressive features of musical creativity and it has been lost to a great deal lately, all in the name of loudness. It never made sense to me in the modern era. As a mastering engineer, it frustrates me when artists bring me mixes that essentially look like solid rectangles on a computer monitor, due to the heavy use of compression and (even worse) auto-normalization!

Classical music is one of my favorite styles and I couldn't image it being engineered, mixed and master this way. The ability of composing music for an orchestra to go from ppp to fff and all levels in between is one of a composer's greatest talents. So much modern music sounds like tone to me because the dynamic range has been destroyed. It's like driving everywhere at 120 mph, you're going to miss so much along the way. Different strokes, I guess.

Someone in this thread mentioned movie SFX mixing as being too loud and I could not agree more. It's one of the reasons I stopped going to movies (cell phone talkers and prices being the others, not to mention lack of decent content, lack of originality, etc...).

Different styles of music certainly require different approaches to mixing and mastering, but all shouild be done with respect to the dynamic ranges of the individual tracks. If I need volume, I'll buy a bigger amp. Rant over!

[kiramdear]

Good one, Jim. I agree completely with your thinking.

[winston]

Jim you are preaching to the choir (me) as far as I am concerned. Your comments are bang on and very well put if I might be so bold to add.

[whojamfan]

This all goes back, as far as I know, to record producers wanting their records to be the loudest one on the stack or in the jukebox. To me, dynamic range is one of the most important and expressive features of musical creativity and it has been lost to a great deal lately, all in the name of loudness. It never made sense to me in the modern era. As a mastering engineer, it frustrates me when artists bring me mixes that essentially look like solid rectangles on a computer monitor, due to the heavy use of compression and (even worse) auto-normalization!

Classical music is one of my favorite styles and I couldn't image it being engineered, mixed and master this way. The ability of composing music for an orchestra to go from ppp to fff and all levels in between is one of a composer's greatest talents. So much modern music sounds like tone to me because the dynamic range has been destroyed. It's like driving everywhere at 120 mph, you're going to miss so much along the way. Different strokes, I guess.

Someone in this thread mentioned movie SFX mixing as being too loud and I could not agree more. It's one of the reasons I stopped going to movies (cell phone talkers and prices being the others, not to mention lack of decent content, lack of originality, etc...).

Different styles of music certainly require different approaches to mixing and mastering, but all shouild be done with respect to the dynamic ranges of the individual tracks. If I need volume, I'll buy a bigger amp. Rant over!

Thank you for further clarifying the importance of artists giving the mastering house something that they can actually use in terms of levels and dynamic range. So many have no idea the importance of mastering, or why folks like you just can't hit the "magic button" and make them sound like the latest flavor on the radio. My hat's off to you for your surgical skills, and ability to deal with these often tempermental people.

[just_bassics]

Thanks all. This is a good thread. I felt this way for a long time and thought I was the only one. It is nice to know that a lot of us are still listening to music.

I agree about Beatles remastering and that applies to all the old classics. Please don't try to improve or "modernize", just remaster for technical correctness. Every time I hear "La Grange" with the remixed gated snare, I cringe! If they ever changed the way the old tunes were mixed, I wouldn't want to listen. It has a lot to do with what your used to hearing, I guess. George Martin admitted that when stereo first came out, no one really knew how to mix it properly, hence things like "vocal left, band right" etc.. but that's how they are and how they should stay, IMO of course! I'm a traditionalist.

Today I listened to DRAMA by Yes, the Rhino version, where the end fade-in before the bass solo of "Does it really happen" was removed and now the synth jumps right out at you. Not how it was originally done and should have been left as is.

Someone mentioned mastering engineers being important because they are fresh ears and not as close to the tracks as the artist and mix engineer - talk about hitting the nail square on the head! And a good mastering engineer will not sugar-coat his or her assessment of the mix, so be prepared for honesty!

Sorry if I'm missing names, but I'm doing 18 hour edit sessions this week and it's beginning to show. Still manage to find time to visit my favorite forum!

Man, I could chat all day about recording techniques and such, really one of my favorite topics, but I've got to get back to trying to turn blocks of sound into squiggly lines!

[kiramdear]

Everywhere I turn for mastering advice, the first thing I hear is, "Have someone else master your tunes." I'm turning my attention back to getting good mixes, then I'll hope to find someone as knowledgeable as yourselves to master them. They may not hit the top 10 but I'll bet I like 'em.

[windchimp]

Today I listened to DRAMA by Yes, the Rhino version, where the end fade-in before the bass solo of "Does it really happen" was removed and now the synth jumps right out at you. Not how it was originally done and should have been left as is.

The first time I listened to the Rhino version I nearly had a heart attack! Why must they do such things? Wasn't anyone from the band involved with this?

Don't mess with Yes!!!!!!

[1965]

Sums it all up perfectly:
http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos ... +mastering