john12ax7
Well-known member
I hadn't heard of DSM before, but will certainly give it a go. Thanks for the heads up.
Mastering Techniques for LOUD
- Thread starter john12ax7
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
ruairioflaherty
Well-known member
john12ax7 said:
It's FFT based so not a conventional peak limiter. Be warned - turn you speakers down before checking out the presets! Some of them have insane amounts of gain dialed in.
I’ve used DSM for years. I set up a mix and put dsm on it and make adjustments to compensate for change from dsm. I’ve sampled other cd’s for shapes from songs i’ve Tried to emulate.
It’s pretty simple to lay the captured spectrum from the sampled section from the track, and then infer the shape on to your mix. It can make mixes very loud however most ultra loud mixes are not enjoyable to listen to no matter how much I like the song . You can also make the shape of one song better match another on a album .
It’s also good for removing sibalance on a vocal and matching instruments in different songs. The parametric eq can be quite confusing to me. It bends the shape of the captured curve. It’s very easy to over use it to flatten dynamics. I would buy a rewrite of the plugin if it went through that.
I don’t consider myself a mastering engineer but still need to master songs to get some projects done. I love it when I have a client that has a separate budget for mastering.
It’s pretty simple to lay the captured spectrum from the sampled section from the track, and then infer the shape on to your mix. It can make mixes very loud however most ultra loud mixes are not enjoyable to listen to no matter how much I like the song . You can also make the shape of one song better match another on a album .
It’s also good for removing sibalance on a vocal and matching instruments in different songs. The parametric eq can be quite confusing to me. It bends the shape of the captured curve. It’s very easy to over use it to flatten dynamics. I would buy a rewrite of the plugin if it went through that.
I don’t consider myself a mastering engineer but still need to master songs to get some projects done. I love it when I have a client that has a separate budget for mastering.
Great Thread,
thanks you so much ruairioflaherty for your insights on the topic and the technics shared, it's a pleasure to have someone with your knowledge, experience and patience with us.
thanks you so much ruairioflaherty for your insights on the topic and the technics shared, it's a pleasure to have someone with your knowledge, experience and patience with us.
ruairioflaherty
Well-known member
Whoops said:
Thanks for the kind words Whoops. I'm far from the only one offering good insights here, Paul Gold and others are all kicking in knowledge.
It is fun to have a topic where I can give back a little, I've learned so much here.
Matador
Well-known member
Isn't 'loud' always going to be a meaningless chase anyways?
For example, if I have a track that is peak limited to -0.01 dbfs and has an average level that sits at -1 dbfs, and I turn the volume knob on my speakers down until it's just a whisper...that certainly isn't 'loud', and nothing anyone can do in mixing or mastering can change that. The SPL in the listening environment is never under the control of anyone except the listener,
It seems that 'loud' only has a relative context between two tracks, that are played under the exact same 'external' conditions ('external', meaning the playback environment). I tried mixing a few tracks to some of the arbitrary standards like -14dbrms, and yes, when those tracks are played, I have to turn the volume knob, but they almost always sounded better.
And I get that when mastering a CD, you want the CD to be consistent across all of the tracks, but isn't that yet again a different problem than 'loudness'?
For example, if I have a track that is peak limited to -0.01 dbfs and has an average level that sits at -1 dbfs, and I turn the volume knob on my speakers down until it's just a whisper...that certainly isn't 'loud', and nothing anyone can do in mixing or mastering can change that. The SPL in the listening environment is never under the control of anyone except the listener,
It seems that 'loud' only has a relative context between two tracks, that are played under the exact same 'external' conditions ('external', meaning the playback environment). I tried mixing a few tracks to some of the arbitrary standards like -14dbrms, and yes, when those tracks are played, I have to turn the volume knob, but they almost always sounded better.
And I get that when mastering a CD, you want the CD to be consistent across all of the tracks, but isn't that yet again a different problem than 'loudness'?
You know that loudness is not peak level, neither RMS. There can be several programs with identical peak and RMS level and different loudness.Matador said:
The loudness war rages in the context of radio and streaming, where all tracks are played in the same environment, but producer A wants to be louder than producer B.
As a producer, I don't need to have consistent loudness from beginning to end of a CD, unless the tracks are so similar they actually seem to be the same. I often increase the loudness as the song goes; this is complementary with the arrangement increasing in complexity, starting with just an acoustic guitar or a piano, and bringing tracks progressively.
Seeker
Well-known member
When mixing I use izotope insight as my main meter, and I find that many times the momentary volume is the most useful in terms of actual perceived loudness. But perceived loudness is also very much related to overall EQ....
Originally I wrote short term volume, but I was really thing momentary...
Originally I wrote short term volume, but I was really thing momentary...
DerEber
Well-known member
I sometimes have the feeling, that different eq'ing leads to how loud I wish to listen to an album.
Is anyone else having the same impressions?
Is anyone else having the same impressions?
hazel
Well-known member
DerEber said:
Sure!
The warmer and rounder a record is the louder I feel comfortable with.
The harsh and aggressive the softer I listen to
Always matching LU.
I have plenty of wonderful music on records I cannot enjoy because of aggressive eq or minimum dynamic range. I'm not only talking on rock but jazz reissues even classical
For a little historical (?) note, home hifi systems used to have a "loudness" knob, to turn up the apparent loudness while listening at lower volume. It was boom/sizzle smiley face EQ to no doubt compensating for fletcher-munson frequency response of human hearing at lower levels.
More clever "loudness" controls only worked at lower level, ASSuming that bass and treble boost was not needed when system was already turned up to high volume.
JR
More clever "loudness" controls only worked at lower level, ASSuming that bass and treble boost was not needed when system was already turned up to high volume.
JR
DerEber
Well-known member
But the more bass heavy stuff I want to listen louder! ;D
Mainly because it lacks presence at low level for me.
Mainly because it lacks presence at low level for me.
DerEber said:
This situation is exactly the kind of thing you need a real live person making decisions for. The loudness of a bass heavy song will be perceived very differently depending on playback volume. If all the tracks have similar low end it's no problem. If they do not you have to make executive decisions based on experience. If you level match something with a lot of low end with something without a lot of low end at club playback levels the bass heavy track will sound quiet when played back at lower listening levels. The opposite is true too. If you level match a bass heavy track to a bass light track at a low listening level the bass heavy track will sound too loud at club levels.
The way to fix this stuff is subtle and takes a lot of care not to ruin the vibe while addressing the issues.
scott2000
Well-known member
Looks like Brian Lucey is having a live Q&A this Thursday if anyone is interested.......
https://www.puremix.net/live/brian-lucey-mastering-qa.html?utm_campaign=pureMixLive&utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Live_Free_Public_QA_w_Brian_Lucey_-_All_About_Mastering_-_This_Thursday!_-_Lapsed&utm_medium=email&utm_term=pureMix&utm_content=NL+BL+Q%26A
https://www.puremix.net/live/brian-lucey-mastering-qa.html?utm_campaign=pureMixLive&utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Live_Free_Public_QA_w_Brian_Lucey_-_All_About_Mastering_-_This_Thursday!_-_Lapsed&utm_medium=email&utm_term=pureMix&utm_content=NL+BL+Q%26A
scott2000 said:
Thank you so much for sharing that link Scott.
I was not able to attend it live but I just watched the video of the QA with Brian Lucey.
It's a really good session. It's intereting and honest
Brian talks about a lot of subjects discussed in this thread with bold and industry experience explanations
scott2000
Well-known member
weiss said:
oh cool...Thanks for reminding me! I never got a chance to catch it either....
Here's the youtube link in case anyone doesn't have or want to log in to PM site.....
Going to watch later.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRbenhy_ehI
Especially addressing the "shape of the V" makes sense to me in terms of achieving punch and loudness in the mixing and/or mastering process. I mean it sounds obvious but i never thought about it that way (LCR panning etc)
Similar threads
