MASTERING

happy new year production crew!

I take Gordo's point that for 'less experienced' producers, aiming for 0db will result in more ruined mixes, or just clipped and ugly renderings.
I certainly did that a fair bit in the beginning.

ok, let me ask you this. what difference will a mix that peaks at just bellow 0 dB, and a mix that peaks at -10 dB and has been gained to just under 0 dB ?
none.
i dont think that the -10 dB target i mention is for beginners. its just a safe level if you want to make natural sounding mixes. if you wanna talk about advanced mixdowns, then mix straight into a limiter and you'll notice a huge difference. but thats a whole different can of worms..
 
happy new year production crew!



ok, let me ask you this. what difference will a mix that peaks at just bellow 0 dB, and a mix that peaks at -10 dB and has been gained to just under 0 dB ?
none.

i dont think that the -10 dB target i mention is for beginners. its just a safe level if you want to make natural sounding mixes. if you wanna talk about advanced mixdowns, then mix straight into a limiter and you'll notice a huge difference. but thats a whole different can of worms..

well yes..... unless we want to get anal about bit resolutions etc :D
but lets leave that for gearslutz.com

some good reading for "mixing for mastering" can be found here:
http://www.onlinemastering.dk/pdf/mi...ering-tips.pdf
 
i dont think you got it right mate.
even if you got a mix peaking at -10 dB, you can just increase its peak volume with any gain plug in without any squashing or alteration in quality.
the squashing that you talk of is to increase the average volume, and that can happen the same regardless of what volume the material peaks at. The problem with aiming to peak just under 0 dB is that many software mixers dont show a true representation of headroom, and will often peak and distort before they actually register any overs.
if you check some mastering services faqs, they mention that they prefer mixes that peak around -6 dB, so i guess its better to go with that.

Yeah, I was talking about limiting an entire mix and ensuring a level, "average" volume.

This is true, but with the right levels, inspection of the audio, and watching a SA like a hawk, one can make a mix that's right under 0, do a soft limit, and the mix jams.

I've seen that as well... but in the 10 years I've been doing this... I've come to the conclusion that it's better (if one knows what he's doing that is) to make a mix 'with limiter on Master channel off' as close to zero as possible because at that point, the overall or 'average' volume of the track is already near zero, so when it's time to limit the whole mix, there isn't much "averaging of volume" to do, (zero squashing, comp pumping) only keeping peaks from going over.

Honestly, it's all a matter of personal taste imo. Some people like squashed sounding material, some like it how I do my mixdowns/masters, and some like it how you're mentioning.. and then there's the even softer side of it where some simply like the dynamics left alone completely (opt for no limit on the master at all). Different strokes for different folks/genres of music and I'm sure we can all agree to that. :D

I've finally figured out where I want my elements to be in the mix and it seems to be working out very well for me. If you're curious, check out the WIP I posted last... it's called, "Bomberman"... I'd love to know if you think the mixdown could be any better or not. There were a couple comments in there from different people about how they thought the bass could be a bit bigger, and it's very interesting to me because in all honesty, my final version is going to have the Sub turned down at least a full DB.

I only mention that ^ because it goes to show that everyone has different tastes and this is reflected in how people do their mixdowns and their limits.


The Golden Rule I've come across that I can't stress enough is that a Producer should always ask himself these questions of his work:

1. Do the elements have their own space?
2. Do they accomplish what they're supposed to accomplish?
3. Does anything in the mix tire my ears with multiple listens?
4. Are the dynamics intact?
5. Is it as loud as I would like it to be?


penny
penny
 
Last edited:
happy new year production crew!



ok, let me ask you this. what difference will a mix that peaks at just bellow 0 dB, and a mix that peaks at -10 dB and has been gained to just under 0 dB ?
none.

i dont think that the -10 dB target i mention is for beginners. its just a safe level if you want to make natural sounding mixes. if you wanna talk about advanced mixdowns, then mix straight into a limiter and you'll notice a huge difference. but thats a whole different can of worms..

Seconded! :)

A mix with no limit that sits right under 0 and a mix that was mixed down 10 DB quieter and is limited to 0 DB? The limited mix is going to sound fuller and louder because it's average volume has been raised 10 DB.
 
Yeah, I was talking about limiting an entire mix and ensuring a level, "average" volume.

This is true, but with the right levels, inspection of the audio, and watching a SA like a hawk, one can make a mix that's right under 0, do a soft limit, and the mix jams.

I've seen that as well... but in the 10 years I've been doing this... I've come to the conclusion that it's better (if one knows what he's doing that is) to make a mix 'with limiter on Master channel off' as close to zero as possible because at that point, the overall or 'average' volume of the track is already near zero, so when it's time to limit the whole mix, there isn't much "averaging of volume" to do, (zero squashing, comp pumping) only keeping peaks from going over.

Honestly, it's all a matter of personal taste imo. Some people like squashed sounding material, some like it how I do my mixdowns/masters, and some like it how you're mentioning.. and then there's the even softer side of it where some simply like the dynamics left alone completely (opt for no limit on the master at all). Different strokes for different folks/genres of music and I'm sure we can all agree to that. :D

I've finally figured out where I want my elements to be in the mix and it seems to be working out very well for me. If you're curious, check out the WIP I posted last... it's called, "Bomberman"... I'd love to know if you think the mixdown could be any better or not. There were a couple comments in there from different people about how they thought the bass could be a bit bigger, and it's very interesting to me because in all honesty, my final version is going to have the Sub turned down at least a full DB.

I only mention that ^ because it goes to show that everyone has different tastes and this is reflected in how people do their mixdowns and their limits.


The Golden Rule I've come across that I can't stress enough is that a Producer should always ask himself these questions of his work:

1. Do the elements have their own space?
2. Do they accomplish what they're supposed to accomplish?
3. Does anything in the mix tire my ears with multiple listens?
4. Are the dynamics intact?
5. Is it as loud as I would like it to be?


penny
penny
I still am not sure of the difference in your opinions.
Surely you're talking about creating a well-balanced mix peaking at zero, where-as Gordo is talking producing a well-balanced mix peaking at -10db and then evenly gaining (not at all squashing) it up to 0.
What's the difference?
 
Seconded! :)

A mix with no limit that sits right under 0 and a mix that was mixed down 10 DB quieter and is limited to 0 DB? The limited mix is going to sound fuller and louder because it's average volume has been raised 10 DB.
Oh, you just answered that. Not sure I understand why......sigh..........better wait until that one 'clicks'.
 
A mix with no limit that sits right under 0 and a mix that was mixed down 10 DB quieter and is limited to 0 DB?

no (n)

... Gordo is talking producing a well-balanced mix peaking at -10db and then evenly gaining (not at all squashing) it up to 0.

yes (y)

well yes..... unless we want to get anal about bit resolutions etc :D
but lets leave that for gearslutz.com
oh common man, dont even bring this here ! :D
even if we want to get anal, you will not lose any REAL resolution by aiming at a peak of -10. if anything, you will lose resolution the moment you move the master fader down to avoid overs, not the other way around.

i feel like a broken record thats stuck on "minus ten decibe l!click! minus ten decibe l!click! minus ten decibe l!click!"
:clown:
 
Last edited:
I've come to the conclusion that it's better (if one knows what he's doing that is) to make a mix 'with limiter on Master channel off' as close to zero as possible because at that point, the overall or 'average' volume of the track is already near zero, so when it's time to limit the whole mix, there isn't much "averaging of volume" to do, (zero squashing, comp pumping) only keeping peaks from going over.

ok, first of all let me apologise, because it may seem like im arguing against what your saying just out of spite. thats not the case at all, and i do agree that different people have different methods. theres no single one that is absolutely right, but there are certain mistakes in some. i do think that you may be confusing or misunderstanding "average" and "peak" volume, or perhaps im misunderstanding what you are saying.
Average volume means the volume you actually perceive. a drum break with sharp transients will sound much quieter than one which is compressed, despite the fact that both will peak at 0 dB.
Now, when you complete an in-the-box mixdown, with out a master limiter, it will sound exactly the same at any peak level, as long as you haven't gone too hot and caused digital clipping.
The method that you're using is something that one would do on a hardware mixer, as running your tracks hot through the pre amps will induce saturation (which is compression), and thus create a higher average volume.
what sort of setup are you working on ? i'll check bomberman (y)
btw, sorry if i seem patronising mentioning all these production trivia. i reckon theres a communication gap somewhere.!
 
Last edited:
ok, first of all let me apologise, because it may seem like im arguing against what your saying just out of spite. thats not the case at all, and i do agree that different people have different methods. theres no single one that is absolutely right, but there are certain mistakes in some. i do think that you may be confusing or misunderstanding "average" and "peak" volume, or perhaps im misunderstanding what you are saying.
Average volume means the volume you actually perceive. a drum break with sharp transients will sound much quieter than one which is compressed, despite the fact that both will peak at 0 dB.
Now, when you complete an in-the-box mixdown, with out a master limiter, it will sound exactly the same at any peak level, as long as you haven't gone too hot and caused digital clipping. The method that you're using is something that one would do on a hardware mixer, as running your tracks hot through the pre amps will induce saturation (which is compression), and thus create a higher average volume.
what sort of setup are you working on ? i'll check bomberman (y)
btw, sorry if i seem patronising mentioning all these production trivia. i reckon theres a communication gap somewhere.!

No apologies necessary mate, I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion... :D

I'm pressed for time and will reply in depth tomorrow morning over my coffee, but right off the bat:

Are you saying a mix with no limit at -10 is going to sound the same as the same mix with no limit at -20 and at 0?
 
Are you saying a mix with no limit at -10 is going to sound the same as the same mix with no limit at -20 and at 0?

but why would you go that low ? theres no point in peaking a mix at -20, at which point you will have more than likely reduced each channel's fader enough as to lose resolution. thats not what i describe.
this is complicated...i suppose each to their own and all that jazz..
 
oh common man, dont even bring this here ! :D
even if we want to get anal, you will not lose any REAL resolution by aiming at a peak of -10. if anything, you will lose resolution the moment you move the master fader down to avoid overs, not the other way around.

i feel like a broken record thats stuck on "minus ten decibe l!click! minus ten decibe l!click! minus ten decibe l!click!"
:clown:

lol. quite enjoying this thread.

i think gordo's point is: you lose nothing from mixing quietly (within reason), limiting doesn't even come into it. but if you mix hot and clip a vst or channel along the way then your changing your mix. so to be safe you might as well mix low. say overall master channel peaking at -6ish.

but whatever works for you is what works for you, and the proof is in the pudding eh?
 
If you start to turn down the master, you lose 1 bit of dynamic range per every 6 decibels of sound reduction. And when it comes down to 32bit (or 64bit) internal mixing within DAW's, 1 or even 2 bits dont mean nothing in dance music. You'll very unlikely have anything playing at -138, which would be your dynamic range when you mix with -6dB in mind. Turning down the master to -6 or -10 changes practically nothing. But i think this is just the gearslutz banter you tried to keep off this thread :D

And fwiw with gordo's point, I agree, there is really no difference in sound whether it is mixed to -20 -10 or -0 if it doesn't clip at -0. You can just adjust the final output gain to make up for the volume, but as said you start losing bit depth. Not much but enough to make -20 unworthy of the effort.

Gaining the final mix up +10dB and limiting it up +10dB are two different things. A limiter will always touch transients while a simple gain will leave them as is. If you limit without triggering the treshold, you're not limiting, you are simply applying more gain.

but all in all, mix balance will sound same with peaks at -10 and at -1. You can simply make up for it by adjusting your amp/mixer/whatever gain accordingly.
 
and it was already said but I'll mention it again: All the masterers I've heard of want the mix to peak at -3 or even less. I wouldn't know why they need that headroom but that's the way it is.

The only reason I see of needing a limiter on the master, or doing any kind of mastering yourself is when playing the tunes in a dj set - an unmastered tune will be quieter compared and you'd need to adjust the gain on the mixer.
 
ja, all correct imho.
i reckon MEs recommend unlimited mixes as to avoid having to deal with poorly done jobs from the general public.
but just to confuse things a bit more, there are many producers who mix into a limiter, and then send the tunes for mastering as they are. namely, this method is been mentioned by mistabishi, phace, and noisia, who claimed that many others do that as well. havent tried it myself, it just feels so unnatural after so much preaching about not squashing your mixes...
 
I've recently started experimenting with mixing into a compressor instead of a limiter. That way you retain much more control of the effect. I've found a nice way to do it by calculating the lenght of my snares and kicks and setting the attack and release with that in mind. This way you can really make your main drum hits smack through the mix. I try to keep it subtle, with only a few decibels gain reduction, with low ratio settings like 1.2:1 or 1.4:1. That way you can go deeper with the treshold. All that combined with a sidechain signal that has the sub frequencies cut out I think it's a really nice sound. If it's still too much I try to adjust the effect more with the mix level (PSP Mastercomp has all these features btw, and i'm not even endorsing them hehe).

I still keep the main level under -3, but I yet have no idea how a ME would react to a mix like this.
 
there are many ways my son, but the magic lies more with the release than with the attack. One is to adjust the sample ADSR to your liking (or use a gate plugin) then open it up in your favourite wave editor, and just see the length.

The other way includes calculators and such, but a nice shortcut to all that is this website (also very nice for rhtythmical LFO's or delays on plugins that can't be synced to tempo):
http://web.forret.com/tools/bpm_tempo.asp?bpm=175&beat=4&base=4

Basically you'd divide 60 seconds with your bpm and the result will be the length of 1/4th in milliseconds. If it's too long you can divide it by half, four or eight to keep things on rhythm.

Mostly I use the attack under 30ms to keep a good snappiness in the mix then adjust the release according to above, to go with the tempo.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom