Mastering Techniques for LOUD

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
boji said:
I just cracked open the manual on this...  talk about your swiss army knife of eq's!

OK, let's do this!  First - I hate Swiss Army Knives  :)

I have a preset setup that is IIR (Minimum Phase) only, stock DMG filters, analyzer turned off, no MS, gain curve magnified so+/- 6dB fills whole display etc

I'm not interested in emulating Sontec curves or whatever.  Occasionally I'll switch in a first order shelf but that is the extent of my craziness.  Options are toxic, and if you have to explore do it when you are not working on something that matters.

I think Equality might sound the same and be cheaper but I can't say for sure.

 
Mbira said:
Sorry, I just meant using a clipper.  The one I use is called clip shifter:
http://lvcaudio.com/plugins/clipshifter/

Nice, i'm gonna try that one out.
 
Louder is actually better. Play the same thing but make one instance half a dB louder. It’s not obviously louder but it sounds better.  Electromechanical devices don’t like to move much. So minimal dynamic range makes speakers happy.  The best mix has no low end, no high end and no dynamic range. It of course sounds huge, deep and wide. Then you are done.
 
Horrible advice and destruction of sound on the pretense of professionalism.

Sounds to me more like a pretense of demand and perception of the lay-listener. It is regrettable tho.
 
I think getting things loud is important in the right hands....

....Not everyone can just turn up the volume.....It's very possible with the right set up to be able to mix up say 80s hits levels with today's in a live scenario for instance but there has to be enough tools around and gas in the system to make these changes as needed......  but most playback methods aren't capable of this......

What are some of the reference tracks you guys turn towards for different genres????
 
boji said:
Sounds to me more like a pretense of demand and perception of the lay-listener. It is regrettable tho.

Yes you described it more accurately. It's hopeless. I suppose most don't get to choose their clients and will simply do whatever. Perhaps there's no longer such a thing as a mastering engineer. Loudness engineer would be a more appropriate moniker.
 
Kingston said:
Yes you described it more accurately. It's hopeless. I suppose most don't get to choose their clients and will simply do whatever. Perhaps there's no longer such a thing as a mastering engineer. Loudness engineer would be a more appropriate moniker.

So, again I ask….How would you approach this?
 
....Not everyone can just turn up the volume.....It's very possible with the right set up to be able to mix up say 80s hits levels with today's in a live scenario for instance but there has to be enough tools around and gas in the system to make these changes as needed......  but most playback methods aren't capable of this......

Kingston said:
Yes you described it more accurately. It's hopeless. I suppose most don't get to choose their clients and will simply do whatever. Perhaps there's no longer such a thing as a mastering engineer. Loudness engineer would be a more appropriate moniker.

I think you are right. I don't know if it's just me but my fear is that more and more amateur producers are already doing the mixing themselves and i get the feeling this will shift to the mastering as well and as of today a lot of AI software is being created (e.g. https://www.izotope.com/en/products/master-and-deliver/ozone/ozone-advanced.html). Of course you can't compare the expertise etc. but a lot of these people care less about quality than loudness and I guess if you're not working for a big music publisher or have frequent clients, bad times will come the next 10-20 years..
 
Kingston said:
Yes you described it more accurately. It's hopeless. I suppose most don't get to choose their clients and will simply do whatever. Perhaps there's no longer such a thing as a mastering engineer. Loudness engineer would be a more appropriate moniker.


This has been going on since the beginning of recorded music. Slamming level and having little dynamic range was a requirement for acoustic recording to wax cylinder. Same with shellac 78's. Although not  requirement for signal to noise ratio 7" singles were usually mastered as loud as possible. Sonic compromises were par for the course.

Everything I do is for the lay listener. I could care less what some genius bedroom producer thinks.
 
Kingston said:
Genius living room producer. But that is an easy mistake to make.

I wasn't singling you out. I was responding to

boji said:
Sounds to me more like a pretense of demand and perception of the lay-listener. It is regrettable tho.

The lay listener should be first priority.  After all they are the customers. Someone with preconceived bias is not who I'm looking to please.
 
Melisma has been ridiculously overused in modern singing.  But it's also an important technique for an aspiring singer to learn.  Then you can add it with hopefully good taste.

That's how I feel about loud masters,  and fields of study in general.  You learn as much as you possibly can,  without predisposed judgments on the aesthetics or usefulness. Once you truly understand something then you can fully evaluate it's value,  or lack thereof.
 
Once you truly understand something
Sounds like the classic advice,  'learn the rules before you break them'.

Melismatics... I've sung in choirs, chamber singers, all state in HS, and I learned a word today. Thanks!
 
Gold said:
This has been going on since the beginning of recorded music. Slamming level and having little dynamic range was a requirement for acoustic recording to wax cylinder. Same with shellac 78's. Although not  requirement for signal to noise ratio 7" singles were usually mastered as loud as possible. Sonic compromises were par for the course.

Everything I do is for the lay listener. I could care less what some genius bedroom producer thinks.
+1

All else equal louder generally "sounds" better, so gives a competitive advantage especially in broadcast situations where songs are played side by side with others at same playback volume. Broadcast engineers got serious (less serious) with post processing back in the 70s cobbling together loudspeakers crossovers and multiple compressors. Since then the squashing machines have gotten more sophisticated, but pretty much any way you squash it you are distorting the signal. The trick is not to be so obvious the listener hears you doing it. Modern listeners have probably become accustomed to some clipping by now (unfortunately).

Good luck.

JR

PS: I remember back then buying an album with songs I liked and hearing them untrashed for the very first time.
 
JohnRoberts said:
Since then the squashing machines have gotten more sophisticated, but pretty much any way you squash it you are distorting the signal. The trick is not to be so obvious the listener hears you doing it.
JR
What I dislike most about multi-band compression by radio stations is its detrimental effect on many classic tracks. These were beautifully crafted with the sound created by the arrangement of different instruments blending together. Multi-band compression has a nasty tendency to alter the mix so that blending no longer occurs and destroys the intended sound.

Cheers

Ian
 
Back
Top