Mastering compression advice needed..

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
skal1

skal1

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
1,282
Location
Birmingham,uk
OK , so i've done a lot of reading on this subject of the compressor  in the mastering chain but hay, i am none the wiser, so what are the

key point's that the compressor should be achieving .


This what i think , i might be wrong .

1} Increasing the RMS level?(How do i achieve this)

2} Not smashing the dynamics ?(How do i achieve this)

I am also so confused about what is the acceptable  rms. level i should  be hitting the compressor with and should i use the auto gain button

or adjust manually .


Gain after compression / your thought please.

PS.ITB just homing my skills for now..


cheers

skal1




 
I'm not a mastering nothing but here goes what I can tell.

For increassing RMS level I've seen some techniques, the first one is to use a dedicated limiter plugin as L2 or ozone maximizer section. Other would be using an analog fast compressor used as limiter as well or any other type of limiter.
Other is to clip the signal, I've seen this done with prism converters with great results, driving the input over 0dBFS (around 6dB or more) or some diode clipper. You should choose your technique depending on style and avaiable tools.

The RMS level will depend on the style and the sound you want to get, the aparent level, etc... if it sounds too loud it will be distorted (death magnetic) if it sounds low it will sound weak when listening to other music and jump to this and the other problem will be peaks too big to be managed by some listener stereo and saturate there in an ugly way instead of being saturated or limited in a controled way  in your studio. For a reference you should use some RMS/Peak meter or even better a dynamic range meter as brainworx's TT and compare to what you want to get... My recomendation never go as loud as californication (Up to -4.5dBFS for RMS) it is too loud! 2 db more of difference between peak and rms is loud enogh for rock in high level parts as chords, so working around 7 or 8dB of dynamic range here is loud, in the rest of the song more, much more... all the dynamics the song go down you win in used dynamic range... some uses 10 or 11dB and it sound great, I like it better but it sound lower than other things and some people don't like it.


For not smashing the dynamics you could compress as much as you want and add automation to the master exagerating dynamic response of the song, probably before the compressor so it will be working harder in louder parts and even lower in lower parts... Also use slow compressor for this task, won't take up RMS level but helps to 'glue' the mix like SSL buss compressor.  I've seen compression in mastering studios up to 12dB GR and automation like I tell and works really nice, you will probably need a fader controller so you listen the song feeling needed dynamics and correct it in real time.

JS
 
Skal,

I'm taking 5 from a session so this will be quick.  I am a mastering engineer, here are some thoughts in no particular order of importance.  These are personal opinions.

- Ignore 98.7% of what you read on the internet about compression in mastering.

- I don't find compression useful for getting loudness, for me the most important element is the right eq followed by careful limiting and clipping.

- I use compression in mastering for two things 1) Glue to help a track gel and sound polished 2) catchy weird peaky transients that sound out of place.

- It is very rare for me to see more than 1dB of compression on my meters, maybe 1 track in 20 I'll do more.

- Forget the RMS game. Useless numbers are being bandied about all day long on various forums.  Compare your finished work to the standard bearers in whatever genre you are working in - number don't matter and rarely tell you anything useful.

- "Not smashing the dynamics?" That's entirely up to you, getting the kinds of level expected today almost always smashes the dynamics but it's all about how you do it.

- Make sure you are listening on the best speakers you can afford in a space that you trust.  Everything you do to attain level will have compromises attached, you must be able to hear what it is you are trading to gain the level you want/need.

- Good mixes go loud somewhat elegantly, bad mixes fall apart.  Find some good mixes to work on for your learning process, making assumptions about working methods based on bad mixes is a bad idea.

- IMO color in mastering is highly overrated (of course what many EDM guys call mastering really is just bus processing on their mixes in which case I say knock yourself out).

Good luck.
Ruairi





 
Ruairi, I'm with you in what you said.

ruairioflaherty said:
- Make sure you are listening [...] in a space that you trust.
...
Click to expand...
This is truly important, probably the space will be coloring more the track than the speakers if you have some good monitors but not really good treated room. I always measure a room that I don't work often to have as reference or I feel I don't know what I'm listening to... If a problem with a track, the mix or the room it self. I work with mix not mastering but probably equal or more important in mastering than mixing.


One thing to remember today is that mastering prupose is not what it was originaly for.

When cutting a disc for 78rpm or 33rpm mastering process was about adding anti RIAA filter so lows don't jump from a groove to the next one and limiting so highs don't clip because anti RIAA filter, the process was for technical pruposes to the medium in which is recorded to.

Today is a artistical process, you could just put the mix in a CD and it will not have any problems, but it probably will sound low and have other things that may be better, but just from a artistic point of view. So with this in mind you know you don't need numbers... Numbers I put before were for reference in the style I mention but nothing else. Number here help me to check when I'm working in real time but is better to copare with some reference, the numbers I use are taken from some reference in the moment depending on the style.

JS
 
Hey Joaquin,

No offense meant when I referred to RMS numbers, I hadn't read your post when I posted - it was a 2 minute ramble on my part.  On a dinner break now hence my follow up.

Cheers,
Ruairi
 
Non taken, I just wanted to clarify... Once a friend came outraged because he had read that is not good to use less than XdB of dynamic range in X style and he found a track with X-2dB of dynamics.

Numbers are reference, nothing else, you could beat them if you want, but is always good to have some starting point... The same with measurements, taking a 'flat' response from a sound system is possible, but not always desired... For a disco or a pub I just take down big peaks and boost sub lows a little and work much better and with less effort than a flat response. The same for studio in smaller scale, I just like to know the response so I know what I'm listening... For example you can be hearing a resonance in the guitar track and you don't know if it cames from the room where it was recorded, the rig of the player or your monitoring room, if you know that your room has a resonace in X freq and it is the same off the problem it's probably just it, in this case I check with headphones where no room is affecting the listening conditions.

In the other hand, also IMO I like some color in mastering when it fits and I've seen mastering compressors working at highs levels of reduction (10-12dB) but working with slow times the working range is a couple of dB, just a different couple than from 0 to 2 dB. I like how it worked with that song.

The Beatles used to work with RS124 (altec vari-mu) something like this... but because it was slow at the start of the track it let all the level up to go through, that's why the hold position in the time switch, so they put to work the compressor before start recording, put it in hold and when start the track take it out and start to work normaly. A technique I've seen when hold is not avaiable is to use a loud part of the track copied just before the track starts and when finished processing cut this part out, so it make the compressor start compressing and when the track it self start it's already working around the desired level.

JS

Ruairim no offense either... as I said is an artistical process so it's all about preference, there is not wrong or right, except death magnetic case! :p
 
Bob Katz´s "Mastering audio-the art and the science"  book is the best reading out there. I would read it a thousand times and then read it again.
 
pachi2007 said:
Bob Katz´s "Mastering audio-the art and the science"  book is the best reading out there. I would read it a thousand times and then read it again.
Click to expand...


Bob seems like a nice guy but I'd disagree pretty strongly on how useful his book is.  Bob has some very unique opinions and workflows but they are presented as though they are the industry norm - which is definitely not the case. 

If the goal is to get better at mastering try to spend time with people who do it for a living.  You will learn more sitting in on a few sessions than you will from 1,000 internet posts or books.  I can think of a few key specific sessions that propelled me forward when I started learning about mastering - I left with ideas, questions and techniques to try and most of all a sense of how much I had to learn and what a good room sounded like.





 
To ruairioflaherty and joaquins thanks for the hints and things to consider, so after looking through the thread i pick out a few key points and put those to works .

So these are my findings so far RMS is link to the peak level and the dynamics range, so when i push the Rms level up the dynamic's suffer at a certain point , another observation

is that when you turn down the RMS down the dynamics range widens again ha ha , so i am stuck between having equal RMS to dynamic range or low Rms and wide dynamic

range .


These are my observations so correct me if ia m wrong , or help me under stand  how to achieve High Rms with wide dynamic range.

cheers


skal1

 
Just for clarification, dynamic range is used in my posts as the diference between peak and RMS, dynamic range is often used as the diference between the higher to the lower level something have, like a song from lowest parts to loudest parts, or a device like an analog compressor from noise to headroom.

I like more this last definition better than peak to RMS difference, It has another name that I don't know in this laguage but the meters I know use dynamic range and that is why I use it, maybe we have another word and you don't.

JS
 
joaquins said:
Just for clarification, dynamic range is used in my posts as the diference between peak and RMS, dynamic range is often used as the diference between the higher to the lower level something have, like a song from lowest parts to loudest parts, or a device like an analog compressor from noise to headroom.
Click to expand...

correct
 
I think alot of the compression you hear is actually dialed in during recording/mixing.

The extreme loudness we see achieved on most of today's releases are the result/strength of digital limiters.
 
skal1 said:
These are my observations so correct me if ia m wrong , or help me under stand  how to achieve High Rms with wide dynamic range.
Click to expand...

Impossible.  You are basically saying you want it loud and quiet at the same time.  To get records as loud as the going level today the dynamics suffer, their is no way around that.

If a record is arranged well, played well, mixed well you have a decent chance of getting it loud and it still sounding like music.  If not all bets are off.

If you are just starting to explore mastering try to ignore loud for now and just focus on getting things sounding good. The very best mastering is all about the right eq (if necessary) - that is the biggest key to translation and an even balance.

 
ruairioflaherty said:
skal1 said:
These are my observations so correct me if ia m wrong , or help me under stand  how to achieve High Rms with wide dynamic range.
Click to expand...

Impossible.  You are basically saying you want it loud and quiet at the same time.  To get records as loud as the going level today the dynamics suffer, their is no way around that.

If a record is arranged well, played well, mixed well you have a decent chance of getting it loud and it still sounding like music.  If not all bets are off.

If you are just starting to explore mastering try to ignore loud for now and just focus on getting things sounding good. The very best mastering is all about the right eq (if necessary) - that is the biggest key to translation and an even balance.
Click to expand...

I think it's possible, it depends on what we call dynamic range... the dynamic range we want big is keep the noise low (not obsessive about this) and louds parts to be much louder than soft parts, but a small dynamic range between peak and RMS.

So turn up RMS with limiter (Waves L2 is easy to use and very usefull, I always mix with one in the master for expecting some limiting in mastering) but it shouldn't make much diference in soft parts if not abused... a typical mastering can make up up to 10 or 12dB aparent loudness (not all in RMS) but quiet parts don't need to have RMS as close to peak as louder parts, because the peaks of quiet parts won't make final listener stereo to clip compared to lodest ones. Just win as level as you like, can, etc without a lot of distortion in loudest parts and keep quiet ones down with automation to get back all that musical dynamics intact or even bigger as the songs ask for them.

JS
 
joaquins said:
I think it's possible, it depends on what we call dynamic range... the dynamic range we want big is keep the noise low (not obsessive about this) and louds parts to be much louder than soft parts, but a small dynamic range between peak and RMS.

So turn up RMS with limiter (Waves L2 is easy to use and very usefull, I always mix with one in the master for expecting some limiting in mastering) but it shouldn't make much diference in soft parts if not abused... a typical mastering can make up up to 10 or 12dB aparent loudness (not all in RMS) but quiet parts don't need to have RMS as close to peak as louder parts, because the peaks of quiet parts won't make final listener stereo to clip compared to lodest ones. Just win as level as you like, can, etc without a lot of distortion in loudest parts and keep quiet ones down with automation to get back all that musical dynamics intact or even bigger as the songs ask for them.

JS
Click to expand...


I don't really understand what you are saying here.  For someone starting out I'd strongly advise forgetting about RMS and particularly the idea of target RMS.  I've been making records for just over 18 years and mastering for 10 years and I have never, not once measured the RMS value of a track I've mastered. 

I would advise Skal1 to spend time listening to records that he likes the sound of and figure what makes them tick.  How dynamic are they?  Where does the excitement come from? (not just sheer level)  What makes some records compelling and others not.

I master records to modern standards of loudness almost every day.  I very very rarely compress more than 1dB, I'll sometimes clip if necessary (digitally not at the converter) and then limit by 2dB. How much of clipping and limiting is required depends very much on the mix. 
 
ruairioflaherty said:
pachi2007 said:
Bob Katz´s "Mastering audio-the art and the science"  book is the best reading out there. I would read it a thousand times and then read it again.
Click to expand...


Bob seems like a nice guy but I'd disagree pretty strongly on how useful his book is.  Bob has some very unique opinions and workflows but they are presented as though they are the industry norm - which is definitely not the case. 

If the goal is to get better at mastering try to spend time with people who do it for a living.  You will learn more sitting in on a few sessions than you will from 1,000 internet posts or books.  I can think of a few key specific sessions that propelled me forward when I started learning about mastering - I left with ideas, questions and techniques to try and most of all a sense of how much I had to learn and what a good room sounded like.

I agree with you, those are Bob opinions and workflows. I also agree about the way they are presented.But I still think it´s the best book out there, expecially for somebody who wants to know what mastering is about. I think there a lot of concepts that are excepcionally exposed (like dynamics discussed here).Maybe it´s not useful for you who are a profesional but I still think it´s unvaluable
I also agree that you´ll learn more attending a few sessions but what´s the chance for somebody who´s starting? Would you let somebody who´s not a client  sit next to you? If so I´m in... and a few friends too  :)

Cheers
Click to expand...
 
Ruari I agree with you, those are Bob opinions and workflows. I also agree about the way they are presented.But I still think it´s the best book out there, expecially for somebody who wants to know what mastering is about. I think there a lot of concepts that are excepcionally exposed (like dynamics discussed here).Maybe it´s not useful for you who are a profesional but I still think it´s unvaluable
I also agree that you´ll learn more attending a few sessions but what´s the chance for somebody who´s starting? Would you let somebody who´s not a client  sit next to you? If so I´m in... and a few friends too  :)

Sorry I double posted still trying to figure out who attachments and stuff works  ;D

Cheers
 
pachi2007 said:
Ruari I agree with you, those are Bob opinions and workflows. I also agree about the way they are presented.But I still think it´s the best book out there, expecially for somebody who wants to know what mastering is about. I think there a lot of concepts that are excepcionally exposed (like dynamics discussed here).Maybe it´s not useful for you who are a profesional but I still think it´s unvaluable
I also agree that you´ll learn more attending a few sessions but what´s the chance for somebody who´s starting? Would you let somebody who´s not a client  sit next to you? If so I´m in... and a few friends too  :)

Sorry I double posted still trying to figure out who attachments and stuff works  ;D

Cheers
Click to expand...

Pachi,

I think the big issue I have with how mastering is presented by Bob and on the internet is that people want to complicate the issue a lot.  Bob talks about techniques like Multiband expansion which are not used by the majority of working mastering engineers.  I would say to everyone beginning in mastering - keep it simple.  One EQ, one good compressor, de-esser and a limiter.  Start there and that is really all you'll need for 95% of jobs.  You won't need multiband very often, or stereo widening or so many of the other "darkarts" techniques that are supposedly the preserve of the mastering giants.

If you ever come to L.A. you are welcome to sit in on a session with me!  I'm sure that if you are serious about learning you can find someone to sit in with where you live.
 

Similar threads

B
What is your mastering suite?
Replies
4
Views
3K
pucho812
pucho812
B
What is your mastering suite?
Replies
15
Views
3K
kags
K
P
Adding Volume and Gain Controls to Single Tube Preamp
Replies
1
Views
125
ruffrecords
ruffrecords
P
Live Record for Radio Broadcast with gear I built.
Replies
1
Views
6K
Ricardus
Ricardus
A
Gates SA-39B (M3529B) not compressing (FIXED)
Replies
9
Views
506
arthurdb
A

Latest posts

Back
Top